IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15817 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.J.M.INTERNATIONAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR GAURI SHANKER MISHRA, 138, G.T.ROAD, SHREE APARTMENT, BLOCK-B, 10TH FLOOR (SOUTH), HOWRAH-711 102. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN SRI.T.R.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.BIJU SMT.V.VIJITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 009. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, NEW DELHI-11. ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCIS FOR R2 SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA FOR R1,3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 15817 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that the petitioner has imported certain machines, which, according to the petitioner, are used digital multifunction machines which have been assessed by the customs authorities under the tariff applicable to photocopier and the petitioner has been directed to pay differential duty, redemption fine and penalty. The petitioner submits that the fine and penalty now imposed is 50%, which is against the decision of this Court in Ext. P9 judgment of the Division Bench, which has categorically held that redemption fine shall not exceed 10% and the fine shall not exceed 5%. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to release the goods. The petitioner made this submission because the petitioner is unable to file an appeal because presently the Appellate Commissioner is not in station to hear the appeals. I directed the petitioner to file a proper appeal and then move the writ petition producing copy of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal has already been filed. He submits that a copy of the same could not be placed because it is very voluminous. However, he points out that in similar cases relating to identical matters, this Court has already passed a judgment in W.P (C) No. 15584 and connected cases on 17-6-2010. The petitioner seeks similar orders in this writ petition also. 2. I have heard the Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for Excise and Customs also. 3. In the decision quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have passed the following judgment: “In these four writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by orders passed by the third respondent in respect of certain goods imported by the petitioners. There was a dispute regarding the classification of the goods. After adjudication, the third W.P.C. No. 15817/2010. -: 2 :- respondent passed orders directing the petitioners to pay additional duty, redemption fine and penalty. The petitioners submit that subsequent to filing of the writ petitions, appeals have been filed before the appellate authority against the adjudication orders. But, according to the petitioners, the appellate authority cannot direct release of the goods, pending consideration of the appeals. It is further submitted that by Ext.P7 order, a learned Judge of this Court has allowed clearance of the goods on certain conditions. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents also. I am of opinion that it is only just and proper that the petitioners be allowed to clear the goods on certain conditions, pending disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the goods to the petitioner pending disposal of the appeal on the following conditions: The petitioner shall pay the duty assessed on the goods. The petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee for 50% of the redemption fine and penalty imposed as per the impugned orders and shall furnish a bond for the remaining 50% to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Customs, Kochi. In view of the said judgment, following the same, I dispose of this writ petition also with a direction to the respondents to release the goods to the petitioner pending disposal of the appeal on the following conditions: The petitioner shall pay the duty assessed on the goods. The petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee for 50% redemption fine and penalty imposed as per the impugned orders and shall furnish a bond for the remaining 50% for the satisfaction of the 2nd respondent. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.