Court orders release of Stone Cutting Tools upon payment of duty & bond, prompt adjudication, petitioner's cooperation.

The court directed the authorities to release the imported Stone Cutting Tools upon payment of entire duty as per declared value and depositing 30% of the differential duty. The petitioner was required to execute a personal bond for the remaining 70% of the differential duty. The authorities were instructed to promptly adjudicate the matter, with the petitioner's cooperation in the enquiry. The writ petition was granted without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Import of Stone Cutting Tools from China
2. Allegations of incorrect valuation by authorities
3. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
4. Counter affidavit denying allegations
5. Investigation by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
6. Show cause notice for proper assessment of goods
7. Precedents for provisional release of imported goods

Analysis:

The petitioner had imported 1610 kilograms of Stone Cutting Tools (Unbranded) from China, but the authorities did not release the goods despite correct quantity and description. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that similar goods imported by others were cleared based on declared values. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents denying the allegations and stating that a notice had been issued for correct valuation. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence conducted an investigation into Carbide Tips and issued a show cause notice due to discrepancies in the value declared by the petitioner compared to prevailing prices.

The petitioner's counsel argued that previous cases had led to provisional release of goods upon payment of entire duty and deposit of 30% of the differential duty. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the court directed the respondents to release the goods upon payment of entire duty as per declared value and depositing 30% of the differential duty. The petitioner was required to execute a personal bond for the remaining 70% of the differential duty. The authorities were instructed to adjudicate the matter promptly and the petitioner was asked to cooperate in the enquiry. The writ petition was granted without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---