IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8267 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S STAR COPIERS, 9846/6, SADAR THANA ROAD, MULTANI DHANDA, PAHAR GANJ, NEW DELHI-110055, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, RAJEEV ANAND. BY ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1) SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KOCHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND EX-OFFICIO ADDITIONAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX FOR R1 SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.8267 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent and the Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the second respondent. 2. The petitioner has imported 95 units of Second hand Digital Multifunction Print & Copying Machine with Accessories and attachments having value of US $ 29025/-. The above goods were shipped from M/s.Modern Cargo International, Canada. Invoice No.MC-1575 dated 4/12/2009 is produced as Ext.P1. For clearance of the sale he filed a bill of entry as per B.E.No.262326 dated 27/1/2010 which is produced as Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the copy of the valuation certificate. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation for release of the goods and in the meanwhile first respondent initiated proceedings. The proceedings were going on. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the first respondent to release the goods without imposing any restriction in the absence of specific restriction in para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy and in para 2.33 of Hand Book of Procedures 2009-2014 and any Notification by W.P.(C)No.8267 of 2010 2 2nd respondent. 3. The first respondent has filed a statement in the matter. It is submitted that the case was adjudicated by the respondent after a personal hearing on 24/2/2010. A decision was taken to confiscate the goods with an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs.10,00,000/- and a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/-. 4. There is a controversy whether the averments in the statement are correct or not and the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the submission made in the statement that an order has been passed. The learned Standing Counsel has produced before me an order dated 18/3/2010 numbered F.No.S30/45/2010 AP(I)Cus., whereby the following order has been passed: “1. Goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.262326 dated 27/01/2010 totally valued Rs.21,51,537/- are confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. However, option is given to the importer to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only). 2. I also impose a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs ony) on the importer M/s.Star Copiers, under Sec.112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.” W.P.(C)No.8267 of 2010 3 5. Therefore the remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal against the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the goods may be released on furnishing bank guarantee. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner can file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and seek for grant of an interim order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it will take some more time for moving the appellate authority to get any interim order in the matter. It is further pointed out if further delay occurs in the matter, he may have to meet other expenses by way of huge demurrages as he has already incurred huge charges, etc. Therefore, I dispose of the matter allowing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for the amount covered in order dated 18/3/2010 and on receipt of the same the goods will be released to the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to file an appeal and seek for appropriate interim order. The present arrangement will be subject to the orders to be passed by the appellate authority on the Stay Petition and in the Appeal. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj