IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 24180 of 2008 Between: Vani Graphics, A sole proprietary concern, havings its office at 19, 2nd Floor, Unity House, Abids, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh-500001, rep. by the sole Proprietor, G.K. Vanisree, D/o. G.K. Srinivasa Murthy, aged 39 Yrs, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. 2 Container Corporation of India Limited, Inland Container Depot, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, direction or order especially in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the respondent No.1 in withholding the release of the goods imported by the petitioner vide Bill of Entry No.714204 dated 12-8-2008 as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the order of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) dated 19-9-2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.RAVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.24180 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The petitioner is aggrieved by the first respondent withholding the goods imported by the petitioner vide Bill of Entry No.714204 dated 12.08.2008 in transgression of the order of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) dated 19.09.2008 and seeks appropriate relief. During the course of business the petitioner imports used photocopiers. He filed Bill of Entry No.714204 for clearance of 105 photocopiers received under a Bill of Lading No.AEJEA/INDHYD/27462 dated 12.07.2008 and claimed classification under CTH 84433100 for 94 machines, asserting that these are multifunctional and claiming a concessional rate of duty. The goods were covered by Invoice No.13437 dated 09.07.2008 and the assessable value declared by the petitioner as per the Bill of Entry was Rs.12,17,382/-. The Assessing Officer however, by holding that the petitioner did not possess a license, declared that the goods are liable for confiscation and passed an order on 01.09.2008 rejecting the declared transaction as invalid and holding that the assessable value of the goods is Rs.13,85,700/- while granting the petitioner an option to redeem the goods by payment of the fine of Rs.3,50,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and imposing a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- in addition. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 128 of the Act. By an order 19.09.2008 the appellate authority intervened and reduced the redemption fine imposed to Rs.1,50,000/- and the penalty to Rs.75,000/-. The second respondent with whom the goods imported by the petitioner are stored, issued a notice on 06.10.2008 to the petitioner to the effect that if the goods are not cleared by payment of charges they would be sold in public auction as per Section 48 of the Act. In the circumstances and since the first respondent is not passing orders for release of the goods despite the orders of the appellate authority, the petitioner is before this Court. On behalf of the first respondent, a counter affidavit is filed wherein it is stated that the appellate order was reviewed by the Committee of Commissioners and a decision taken to prefer an appeal to the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore. Accordingly, an appeal to the CESTAT along with stay petition was filed on 19.11.2008. The Tribunal has neither considered the appeal nor the application for interim stay. Sri A.Rajashekhar Reddy, the Learned Assistant Solicitor General for India, appearing for the first respondent would state that interests of the Revenue substrates the inaction of the first respondent, to pass orders for release of the goods in favour of the petitioner. The stand of the first respondent does not commend acceptance by this Court. The appellate authority had passed an order on 19.09.2008 revising the redemption fine and penalty amount, to Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.75,000/- respectively and the petitioner is at present liable only to pay that amount as condition precedent for release of the goods. If the first respondent were anxious to interdict release of goods unless the petitioner pays the amount of redemption fine and penalty as initially assessed, the first respondent ought not to have taken expeditious steps for moving CESTAT for interim relief. The petitioner cannot be asked to interminably wait till the CESTAT is pleased to consider the first respondent’s appeal and its application for interim relief. On the aforesaid analysis and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission directing the first respondent to expeditiously and in any event within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, release the goods imported by the petitioner vide Bill of Entry No.714204 dated 12.08.2008 on the condition of the petitioner paying the redemption fine and penalty as determined by the appellate authority, viz. the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) qua the order dated 19.09.2008. The eventual liability of the petitioner would however be dependent on any orders passed by the CESTAT in the appeal said to have been preferred by the first respondent. No order as to costs. _________________ G.RAGHURAM, J. _________________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J. 27th November, 2008. Note: Furnish C.C. as soon as possible. (B/O) VGSR/PGS