IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24765 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- MOHIMTULAY TOUSEFF AHMED SHAFIQUDDIN, PROPRIETOR, AFTAAB EXPORTS, 107, KADRI APARTMENT, NEW HALL ROAD, KURLA (W), MUMBAI - 400070. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISES, NEW DELHI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN-09. 3. THE SUPERITENDENT, SIIB, CUSTOMS, COCHIN. BY SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR – ASST. SOL. GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008 ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO.24779 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)Nos. 24765 & 24779 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners in these two writ petitions are importers of certain goods. Their grievance is that the 3rd respondent is not releasing the goods after assessment of duty. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the goods for which bill of lading, commercial invoices and packing list have been submitted and bill of entry issued. ii) Issue a writ declaring that there is no justification in detaining the goods under the guise of inspection and alleged under valuation which will result in imposing of demurrages on the petitioner. iii) Issue a writ directing the respondents to issue the detention certificate for the purpose of waiving the demurrages as the delay for the release is not on account of the importer”. 2. The learned Asst. Solicitor General submits that the goods cannot now be released because the 3rd respondent suspects undervaluation of the goods. Therefore, an enquiry into the question of undervaluation has to be conducted and only after completing the same, the goods can be released. W.P.(c)Nos.24765/08 & Con.case 2 3. The petitioners would contend that they are prepared to give any security for the probable differential duty, if ultimately the petitioners are found to be liable for any additional duty, subject to the right of the petitioners to challenge any orders in this regard in an appeal. In the above circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of as follows: The 3rd respondent shall complete the assessment of duty, as expeditiously as possible and pass speaking orders, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, I do not think that for releasing of the goods, the 3rd respondent should wait till completion of the proceedings. The 3rd respondent can demand a bank guarantee for payment of the probable differential duty in case undervaluation is found out on enquiry. Accordingly, there would be a direction to the 3rd respondent to release the imported goods to the petitioners, on the petitioners furnishing sufficient bank guarantee for the probable differential duty, which the petitioners may be liable to pay on final assessment. I make it clear that this would be subject to the right of the petitioners to challenge any such assessment in appeal in accordance with law. The 3rd W.P.(c)Nos.24765/08 & Con.case 3 respondent shall inform the petitioners as to for what amount the petitioners are bound to give bank guarantee, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On furnishing of the bank guarantee, the goods shall be released to the petitioners forthwith. The 3rd respondent shall also issue necessary consequential certificates to enable the petitioners to get release of the goods. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)Nos.24765/08 & Con.case 4