IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11 OF 2010 IN CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ... Applicant Versus M/S MAX OVERSEAS ... Respondent Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General for the Applicant. Mr. Sanjay Kantawala with Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias and Ms. M. Malar, Advocates for the Respondent. Coram:- NARESH H. PATIL & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 13th January, 2010 P.C.: Heard. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant raises his objection to the request made by the Counsel appearing for the respondent on the ground that there is clear violation of law and the respondent shall not be permitted to deposit the duty and seek custody of the goods. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that respondent has been importing cosmetics since last ten years and for the first time the Revenue/Department has raised objection on the ground that Goa is not the Port for importing cosmetics. The articles/cosmetics imported included hair gel, shampoo, etc. The goods/consignment in question are worth Rs.7.54 lacs and the Revenue has assessed the value at Rs.8.99 lacs, on which the duty is calculated at Rs.2,43,897. 4. Prima facie, we find substance in the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel Mr. Ferreira after considering the provisions of Rule 43A, 132,133 and the definition of Drugs and Cosmetics falling under Section 3(aaa) and 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 5. Goa is not a designated Port under Rule 43A for importing cosmetics. Even though, since last ten years, according to the Counsel, the goods were imported but that could not prohibit the Revenue/Department to raise objection which has been raised in the present matter. 6. The goods are lying at the Port since August, 2009. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that hearing the matter finally would take considerable time since question of interpretation of the relevant provisions as stated above, is involved. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we order that in case the respondent deposits the amount of import duty in respect of the consignment in question, within two weeks from today before the appellant, the appellant shall release the goods in favour of the respondent. This arrangement is subject to final outcome of the appeal. 8. For the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench stands stayed. The order of interim arrangement shall not be treated as precedent. The application, therefore, is disposed of. Authenticated copy be given to both the learned Counsel. NARESH H. PATIL, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH