Ruma Pal, J. - (1.) The petitioner has imported umbrella panels. A contract was entered into with the foreign seller on 2nd March, 1992 for this purpose. The goods arrived in Calcutta on 28th December, 1992 and 11th January, 1993. There were 12 separate consignments of the goods. Ten were released to the petitioner. As far as the remaining two were concerned the respondent authorities insisted that the goods would only be released provided that the petitioner furnished a PD Bond backed by a bank guarantee to the extent of 30% of the assessable value of the two consignments. The petitioner protested against the refusal of the Customs authorities to release the two remaining consignments of goods but ultimately on 22nd February, 1993 and 26th February, 1993 furnished two bank guarantees in support of the bonds executed by the petitioner in favour of the Customs Authorities as disputed by them. Upon the execution of the bond and the furnishing of the bank guarantee the goods were released to the petitioner.
(2.) After having obtained release of the goods the petitioner filed this writ application on 28th June, 1993. The petitioner has complained about the wrongful refusal of the Customs Authorities to release the goods except upon furnishing of bank guarantees. The petitioner has contended that the goods should have been released unconditionally to the petitioner as had been done in respect of the earlier ten consignments. The petitioner has also contended : (i) That under the earlier Export Import Policy the Umbrella panels were freely importable. The contract was entered into between the petitioner and the foreign seller when the earlier policy was in force. It is submitted that the relevant date for considering whether an item was freely importable or not was the date of the contract. Reliance has been placed on a decision reported in AIR 1990 SC 2190 in this context. (ii) Under the new policy as it originally stood, umbrella panels continued to be freely importable. It was only on 30th June, 1992 that a public notice was purported to be issued seeking to widen the definition of consumer durable to include parts of consumer durables. It is stated that the notice dated, 30th June, 1992 in fact amounted to an amendment of the policy. It is stated that the policy could not be amended except by way of a public notification. Reliance has been placed on Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 as well as the decision. (iii) In any event there had been no publication of any of the notices dated 30th June, 1992 and unless there was such publication, the importers could not be held bound by the contents thereof. Reliance has been placed on the decision. (iv) Finally it is contended that no adjudication proceedings having been initiated within a period of six months from the date on which the goods had arrived, the goods must be taken to have been in fact seized within the meaning of 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. No notice under Section 124 having been issued, the petitioner was entitled to release of the goods under Section 110(2) of the Act.
(3.) The writ application was moved upon notice to the respondents. Directions were given for filing of affidavits. The time to file affidavits has expired. No affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondents.;