WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION Vs. SUNIL KUMAR KAYAN
LAWS(SC)-2002-5-51
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on
May 03,2002
WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION
Appellant
VERSUS
SUSHIL KUMAR KAYAN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RAJASTHAN STATE MINES AND MINERALS LIMITED VS. EASTERN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES [REFERRED]Cited Judgements :-
GAIL INDIA LIMITED VS. GEO MILLER AND COMPANY LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2011-8-233] [REFERRED TO]PLUS 91 SECURITY SOLUTIONS VS. NEC CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2024-7-107] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE PREMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONDENT OF INDIA THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (C), TELECOM CIVIL DIVISION II VS. ABIRAMI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER AND SOLE ARBITRATOR, MR J PAL, CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL) TELECOM [LAWS(MAD)-2006-8-331] [REFERRED]
BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED VS. ANNAPURNA CONSTRUCTION [LAWS(SC)-2003-8-102] [REFERRED]
TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD VS. KARAM CHAND THAPAR [LAWS(UTN)-2004-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
VEERARAGHAVA IYER VS. DIVISIONAL SUPDT. SOUTHERN RAILWAY [LAWS(KER)-2002-6-79] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF A P VS. P KRISHNA PRASAD [LAWS(APH)-2003-3-161] [REFERRED TO]
SARASWAT TRADING AGENCY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2006-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
M D ARMY WELRARE HOUSING ORGANISATION VS. SUMANGAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2003-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. A D CHAKRABORTY AND CO [LAWS(CAL)-2010-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. FERRO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-1-219] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAT CHAND JAIN FAMILY TRUST VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. D.KHOSLA AND COMPANY [LAWS(J&K)-2022-5-52] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAMNATH INTERNATIONAL [LAWS(MAD)-2002-10-140] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI VS. JYOTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY [LAWS(BOM)-2002-10-125] [REFERRED TO]
THE UNION OF INDIA REP., BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI AND OTHERS VS. M/S. APPACHI GOUNDER AND SONS [LAWS(MAD)-2017-3-304] [REFERRED TO]
Sheo Shakti Cement Industries VS. Jharkhand State Electricity Board [LAWS(JHAR)-2002-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. VS. SHYAM INDUS POWER SOLUTION PVT. LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
RASHTRIYA CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD VS. CHOWGULE BROTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2010-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Bhan, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and The Superintendent, Oil Installation Warehouse have filed this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order passed by the Calcutta High Court in favour of Sushil Kumar Kayan (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent').
(3.)In the year 1985 the respondent imported 338 coils weighing 1995. 180 Metric Tons of Seconds/Defective -ink Aluminium Sheets from European Economic Community and declared the value of the goods at Rs. 2,440.76 per metric ton. The Customs Authorities assessed the value of the goods at Rs. 3995/- per metric ton. The goods were kept in the godown of the Corporation. Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court saying that there was no basis for assessing the value of goods at such an enhanced rate. A learned single Judge issued an interim direction for the goods to be released to the respondent upon furnishing a bank guarantee for 50% of the disputed custom duty and the personal bond for the balance of the disputed duty. It appears that in the meantime, the Special Investigation Branch of the Customs House issued instructions to the Corporation not to deliver the goods to the respondent.
(2.)The West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and The Superintendent, Oil Installation Warehouse have filed this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order passed by the Calcutta High Court in favour of Sushil Kumar Kayan (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent').
(3.)In the year 1985 the respondent imported 338 coils weighing 1995. 180 Metric Tons of Seconds/Defective -ink Aluminium Sheets from European Economic Community and declared the value of the goods at Rs. 2,440.76 per metric ton. The Customs Authorities assessed the value of the goods at Rs. 3995/- per metric ton. The goods were kept in the godown of the Corporation. Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court saying that there was no basis for assessing the value of goods at such an enhanced rate. A learned single Judge issued an interim direction for the goods to be released to the respondent upon furnishing a bank guarantee for 50% of the disputed custom duty and the personal bond for the balance of the disputed duty. It appears that in the meantime, the Special Investigation Branch of the Customs House issued instructions to the Corporation not to deliver the goods to the respondent.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.