IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10429 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOUNT ZION COLLAGE OF ENGINEERING (A CHARITABLE EDUCATION SOCIETY) KADAMMANITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 649. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN K.J.ABRAHAM. BY ADV. SRIJESTIN MATHEW SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), CUSTOM HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003. ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCIS FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.10429 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P10, a communication issued by the 3rd respondent. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner imported two Learjet air crafts vide Ext.P1 bill of entry. It is stated that these two air crafts are non-flyable and are for demonstration purposes only, for the benefit of the students in College of Engineering run by the Petitioner. 3. On an earlier occasion, praying for provisional assessment and release of the air crafts the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court as WP(c)No.9140/09 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for provisional assessment and release of the air crafts applying the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. WP(c).No.10429/09 2 4. In terms of the judgment provisional assessment has been completed and Ext.P10 has been issued requiring the petitioner to satisfy the conditions mentioned therein which reads as under. “I. Execution of bond for an amount of Rs.1,74,70,476/-(Rupees one core seventy four lakhs seventy thousand four hundred and seventy six only) 2. Furnishing of bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.99,76,932/-(Rupees ninetynine lakhs seventy six thousand and nine hundred and thirty two only) initially for a period of one year and extendable thereafter.” 5. Petitioner submits that the valuation done is exorbitant. He is relying on Ext.P2 bill of entry filed by him and Ext.P6 valuation statement furnished by a Chartered Engineer appointed by the respondents themselves. Counsel also relies on Ext.P7, a bill of entry in respect of another air craft imported by the petitioner. Thus relying on these documents the Petitioner contends that the valuation done by the respondents is totally unrealistic and exorbitant and WP(c).No.10429/09 3 therefore is liable to be interfered with. 6. Respondents have filed a statement. Although several contentions have been raised, all that is relevant for the purpose of this case is that, according to the respondents the value declared by the Petitioner in the bill of entry was far less than what they themselves confessed in their statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Yet another aspect that is brought out is that according to the respondents, for a similar import by another importer through Navaseva Port, for educational purposes the declared value of the air craft was Rs.87,35,238/-. It is stated that compared with this declared value, the value assessed by the Chartered Engineer was much less. Therefore Ext.P6 report was not accepted by the respondents. It is stated that accepting the aforesaid declared value for a contemporaneous import, the number of air craft being two, the respondents have demanded bond for double the value. It is stated that the bank guarantee demanded included the duty, possible fine and WP(c).No.10429/09 4 penalty. 7. The facts of the case being as above, I do not think that there is a scope for this court to interfere, at least, at this stage. When the respondents have found the value declared to be incorrect and the value recommended by the Chartered Engineer to be too low, I cannot, on the material available, find fault with the yardstick that they have adopted. In any case this being the provisional assessment, that has been done, by demanding bond and bank guarantee, respondents are only securing their own interest. This court will not be justified in sitting in appeal on such an orders, especially nothing has been produced to conclude that order is perverse. Therefore I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P10. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.10429/09 5