IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20655 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JOSEPH ANTONY PARAPPILLIL, S.T.P.CHURCH ROAD, NEAR FATHIMA CHURCH, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COCHIN-682 020, PRESENTLY R/A 43, NEWJERSY,U.S.A,REP;BY HIS P/A HOLDER,SMT.MOLY JOSEPH,D/O.LATE P.V.JOSEPH,AGED 50 YRS,R/A PARAPPILILLIL,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE SRI.P.V.ANILKUMAR SMT.J.RAJI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, INTENATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERY. 2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN-9. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 20655 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 30th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner imported certain switches and accessories. There was a dispute regarding the valuation thereof. By Ext. P4 order, the Additional Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the goods valuing the same at Rs. 8,91,000/- but gave an option to the petitioner to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. In addition to the same, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the same in appeal. By Ext. P8 order, the appellate authority set aside the order of confiscation fixing the value of the goods as Rs. 1,52,000/-. The penalty was also reduced to Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner submits that although the petitioner paid Rs. 50,000/-, the goods are not being released to the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P8 appellate order. The petitioner therefore seeks the following relief: “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to release the detained articles to the petitioner.” 2. The only contention raised by the respondents is that the Department has filed an appeal against Ext. P8 order before the Tribunal and, if, ultimately the appeal is allowed, the petitioner would have to pay the differential duty. 3. But, admittedly, in the appeal stated to have been filed, no stay has been granted. I do not think that in the absence of any stay order, the respondents can take the stand that they will not release the goods to the petitioner. However, at the same time, the interest of the Department should also be properly safeguarded. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction: The goods shall be released to the petitioner in accordance with Ext. P8 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment on the petitioner W.P.C. No. 20655/2008. -: 2 :- filing an undertaking to the effect that if, ultimately, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed, the petitioner would pay the balance amount payable to the Department. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.