1993 (9) TMI 120 - HC - Customs

Imported ball bearings released to petitioner after unjust detention by authorities

The court ordered the release of imported ball bearings to the petitioner after finding that the authorities had unjustly detained the goods despite ... Assessment - Customs - Provisional assessment Issues: Provisional assessment of imported goods, dispute over classification of ball bearings, detention of goods by customs authorities, release of goods to the petitioner.Provisional Assessment of Imported Goods: The petitioner imported ball bearings from China and submitted the bill of entry for processing to the Customs Authorities. An order was passed for provisional assessment with additional duty. Subsequently, the officer ordered the opening of 5% cases for inspection to verify the classification of the goods. Samples were drawn, and it was noted that the party failed to produce a catalogue initially. Later, a catalogue was produced, and the bill of entry was assessed based on the order of the Additional Collector.Dispute Over Classification of Ball Bearings: The petitioner contended that the imported ball bearings were not deep groove ball bearings, which attract higher customs duty. The petitioner presented various catalogues to support this claim. The court acknowledged the confusion regarding the classification but emphasized that the provisional assessment order was made in accordance with the order of the Additional Collector.Detention of Goods by Customs Authorities: Despite the provisional assessment indicating that the imported goods were not deep groove ball bearings, the respondent authorities detained the goods. The court held that while the authorities could initiate proceedings for misdescription, they were not justified in detaining the goods based on the order of 25th August, 1993. The court directed the authorities to release the ball bearings to the petitioner upon furnishing specified security.Release of Goods to the Petitioner: The court disposed of the writ application by ordering the release of the goods to the petitioner in accordance with the order dated 25th August, 1993. The release was subject to the petitioner furnishing the required security. The court clarified that the release order did not prevent the authorities from initiating adjudication proceedings or final assessment of the petitioner's case on its merits. No affidavit in opposition was filed, and the court recorded that the allegations in the petition were not admitted. All parties were directed to act on the signed copy of the order.