- (1.) The Court : After hearing the learned Advocates for the petitioners and perusing the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied with the grounds stated in the petition. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the a application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and disposed of.
(2.) The petitioners imported 400 sets of UPS Systems from Taiwan. The goods arrived at Kolkata Port on January 7, 2000. The bill of entry was filed. On inspection the authorities of the customs alleged under valuation. The petitioners were called upon to take delivery of the goods after submitting requisite bond and bank guarantee. Hence, the petitioners filed the writ petition. On 19th May, 2000 the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to release 50% of the goods keeping the balance 50% as security for duty that would be payable and they were also directed to submit a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The authorities claimed that the duty payable for the goods was Rs. 5,00,000/- and accordingly in terms of the order 50% of the goods were released. The authorities passed an order against the petitioners. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed and the appeal was allowed in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners became entitled to get delivery of 50% goods which were kept under the order with the authorities. In the circumstances, the dispute arose since the petitioners did not get the goods or the price thereof which were retained by the authorities. Hence the writ petition was filed.
(3.) We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. This appeal is directed against the order dated October 9, 2007 whereby the Hon'ble First Court held as follows : "From all these, I find that though in view of the order of the Tribunal the petitioners became entitled to get delivery of the balance 50% of the imported goods, today there is no scope to give them the goods, already sold by the authorities to sell the goods after the order of the tribunal. Since the authorities were not in a position to return the goods, in my view, they were liable to pay the price therefor. What was the price at, the date the petitioners became entitled to get delivery of the goods is a question that, in my view, requires adjudication by appropriate forum. Sitting in writ court, I am not in a position to determine the value of the goods. I do not find any reason to go by what was recorded in the order dated May 19, 2000. Price of balance 50% of the goods noted therein was not on the basis of any determination through any process or by any forum. The price recorded in the order was the one claimed by the petitioners. Hence, in my view, so long as the price of the goods at the date the petitioners became entitled to get them back is not determined by appropriate forum, and thus, loss suffered by them is not assessed and determined, there is no scope to exercise writ powers for making an order directing the authorities of the customs to pay any particular amount to them. I think the parties should proceed on the basis of the value of the goods declared by the petitioners in the bill of entry concerned. According to the authorities of the customs that was an under valuation. So, if that value, what was the proper valuation according to the petitioners at the date of import, is taken into consideration for ascertaining whether for the balance 50% of the "goods the petitioners are entitled to get any amount from the authorities of the customs, I think, the parties cannot make any grievance. Needless to say that the question of making any payment to the petitioners is subject to adjustment of duty and other charges that they were liable to pay for importing the goods. In my opinion, on the facts the writ petition should be disposed of giving suitable directions to the authorities of the customs".;