ANAND IMPEX Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. It has been stated that the petitioners had imported second hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines, imported under the various Bills of Entry. However, the customs officers concerned, the respondents herein, had detained the goods in question, without having proper reasons to do so.

(2.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions praying that the customs authorities concerned may be directed to release the goods in question, on payment of the applicable customs duties, on the declared value of the goods, as declared by the petitioners, and on their furnishing the necessary provisional duty bonds, pending final assessment, by the authorities concerned, in order to safe guard the interest of the Revenue, in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 1963.

(3.) The petitioners had further stated that they had imported the second hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines, of various models, from their overseas supplieRs. They had also filed the Bills of Entry, with the assessment group concerned, at the Chennai Custom House, declaring the value of the imported goods, for the purpose of assessment and sought the clearance of the goods, under 'Free Importability', as second hand capital goods, in terms of Paragraph 2.17, read with Paragraph 9.12 of the Foreign Trade Policy, and Paragraph 2.33 of the Hand Book of Procedures of 2009-14. However, the respondent Customs authorities concerned had not taken up the goods for examination, for assessing their value, for the payment of the customs duty. Due to the delay caused by the respondent customs authorities the petitioners are incurring heavy financial losses due to the payment of detention and demurrage charges.