- (1.) The Court: The case of the petitioner, in brief is as under: Petitioner is carrying on business in the name and style of Hanuman Trading Corporation as sole proprietor. He is an exporter and importer of plastic granules and non-ferrous metal. Petitioner purchased a portion of an advance licence bearing No. P/L/1523922/C dated February 15, 1993. On the basis thereof, petitioner imported 959.515 metric tons Copper Wire Bars in six consignments from Singapore. After the said goods were 'discharged', they were initially kept in Dock area in the possession of the Port Authorities. Thereafter in December 19, 1994 and according to the petitioner after several representations in that behalf the goods were allowed to be 'destuffed' from the containers and kept in the Bonded Warehouse as is permissible under section 49 of the Customs Act. The goods and relevant documents given therewith were examined by the concerned customs office. According to the Customs authorities there was mis-declaration of the value of goods which is an offence under the Customs Act, 1962 and rendered such goods liable to confiscation under section 111 of the said Act. The Customs Officer thus having reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation seized the same in exercise of the power conferred on him by section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. According to the petitioner such adjudication was made ex-parte on May 9, 1995 and thereupon a writ application was filed questioning the aforesaid ex-parte adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated July 11, 1995 with a direction upon the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the ex-parte order. Accordingly, an appeal was filed by the petitioner and by an order dated February 7, 1997 the appeal was allowed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short CEGAT). Aggrieved against the said orders, Customs authorities preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court which was disposed of by an order dated July 24, 1997 remanding the matter back to the Commissioner of Customs to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Thereafter, Commissioner of Customs passed an order dated July 28, 1998 holding that the imported goods had been undervalued and directed confiscation of the goods. However, option was given to the petitioner to pay a fine in lieu of the confiscation and personal penalty was imposed upon the petitioner.
(2.) Aggrieved by the said orders dated July 28, 1998 petitioner preferred an appeal before CEGAT which was disposed of by an order dated February 16, 2000. By its order CEGAT allowed the appeal directing the declared CIF values to be accepted. Directions of the Commissioner (Customs) for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty were set aside by CEGAT in its said order dated February 16, 2000. Customs authorities having preferred an appeal against the said order before the Supreme Court, the same was dismissed by an order dated October 28, 2000.
(3.) According to the petitioner the Customs authorities did not release the imported goods even in terms of the order dated February 16, 2000 passed by the CEGAT, despite requests made in that behalf by the petitioner for release of the said material. Thereupon, petitioner filed W.P. No. 1596 of 2001 praying for direction upon respondent-Custom authorities to release consignment of 959.515 metric tons of Copper Wire Bars and also for payment of the amount by way of reimbursement on account of warehousing charges on and from February 16, 2000 till the dated of release. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated November 10, 2000 directing release of the material to the petitioner and granting liberty to the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law for recovery of the amount which petitioner had incurred on account of demurrage for the wrongful detention of the imported consignment of 959.515 M.T.;