- (1.) The appellant/writ petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 15th November, 2017 by which the writ petition was dismissed.
(2.) Mr. Khaitan, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits, the goods are imported consignments lying in containers at the Port. The authorities are obstructing de-stuffing of the containers and as such, huge demurrage charges are being incurred. He submits, application was made on behalf of the owner for provisional release of the goods. There cannot be any dispute regarding ownership since the bills of lading are in the name of Aman Exports, a partnership firm which is the owner of the imported consignments. Copies of one of the bills of lading appear at page 75 of the stay petition and the other original bill is handed up by him on the submission that the authorities have a copy thereof. The original is returned to Mr. Khaitan.
(3.) He also refers to section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides for storage of imported goods in warehouse pending clearance. He submits, situation created by the authorities calls for invocation of clause (a) in that section and there should be an order for warehousing of the goods pending clearance on completion of investigation. He hands up copy of letter dated 4th December, 2017 addressed to his clients by which the respondent no.1 rejected the previous application for provisional release of the goods on the ground that the importer firm was a "shell company". Obtaining leave he files supplementary affidavit disclosing copy of representation dated 29th November, 2017 addressed to the Commissioner of Customs(Port) signed by a partner of the appellant/writ petitioner. He also refers to Central Board of Excise and Customs Circular no.35/2017-Customs dated 16th August, 2017 to submit that the authorities have not disclosed any reason contemplated therein to obstruct provisional release of the goods.;