IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 7093 of 2010(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. A.P.STEEL RE-ROLLING MILL LIMITED, VIII/635, PHASE-1, NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, MENONPARA ROAD, KANJIKODE P.O., PALAKKAD-678 621, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE MANAGER SRI.K.R.SENTHIL KUMAR. BY ADVS. MR.ANIL D. NAIR, MR.M.BALAGOPAL, SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), COCHIN. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN. R1 & R2 BY MR.JOHN VARGHESE, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 7135/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.7093/2010-N & 7135 of 2010-J - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Since identical issues arose for consideration in both these writ petitions, they are disposed of by a common judgment. The documents referred to in both the writ petitions are also the same. 2. The petitioners import scraps from abroad, clears it after paying the customs duty, transit the same to its factory at Palakkad and uses it for melting activities. The petitioner, in the course of its business placed orders for heavy melting scraps with a dealer in U.A.E. Exts.P1 to P3 are the copies of sale contract, invoice and packing list and pre-shipment inspection certificate. 3. The consignment reached Cochin Port and Bill of Entry for home consumption was filed on 19.1.2010. The same is produced as Ext.P4. As per Ext.P5 letter, addressed to the first respondent, the petitioners applied to permit mutilation of the consignment under their supervision and thereafter clearance as per law. As permission was not granted, these writ petitions have been filed. wpc7093 & 7135 /2010 2 4. A statement has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 in both the writ petitions, as directed by this Court. It is averred in the statement filed W.P. (C) No.7093/2010 that Ext.P4 bill of entry dated 19.1.2010 was filed by the petitioners for clearance of 78.95 Mts of goods declared as “Heavy Melting Scrap. The goods were examined by customs officers and on examination it was found that the entire goods imported were channels of length between 1.5 metres to 5.5. metres, width 60 cms. and thickness 4 cms. which cannot be considered as HMS scrap. It is therefore stated that there is an evasion of duty to the tune of Rs.6,90,200/- by misdeclaring the description of goods. It is further stated that the entire goods were presented by the importer for examination only on 6.2.2010 and after examination the bill of entry was submitted with a request for provisional release/mutilation only on 25.2.2010, i.e. after the offence was detected by the Department. A show cause notice was issued on 11.3.2010 to the importer directing him to reply to the charges within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice. It is submitted that the issue can be decided only after adjudication. Similar contentions have been taken in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.7135/2010 also. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents also submitted that in the light of various decisions of the Apex Court, where there is a wpc7093 & 7135 /2010 3 misdeclaration, mutilation and release of goods is not permissible under Section 24 of the Customs Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is only because of the delay, the petitioners are denied the relief of mutilation and the issuance of show cause notice is an after thought. The said contention appears to be not correct in the light of the sequence of events pointed out in the statement filed by the respondents. 7. In the above view of the matter, the respondents are free to proceed with the adjudication and the petitioners will co-operate with the same. There will be a direction to complete the adjudication within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioners and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/