Court upholds provisional assessment of import, dismisses writ petition challenging communication. Petitioner required to execute bond.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging a communication by the 3rd respondent regarding the import of non-flyable air crafts for educational purposes. The court upheld the provisional assessment completed by the respondents, requiring the petitioner to execute a bond and furnish a bank guarantee. Despite the petitioner's argument of exorbitant valuation, the court found no grounds to interfere, noting discrepancies in the declared value compared to previous imports. The court concluded that the respondents were justified in securing their interests, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

---

---

Issues: Challenge against communication issued by 3rd respondent regarding import of non-flyable air crafts for educational purposes.

Analysis:
The petitioner imported two non-flyable air crafts for educational purposes, specifically for the benefit of students in a college of engineering. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition for provisional assessment and release of the air crafts, which was disposed of by a judgment directing the respondents to consider the request applying relevant provisions of the Customs Act.

In response to the judgment, provisional assessment was completed, and the petitioner was required to execute a bond and furnish a bank guarantee as per Ext. P10 communication. The petitioner argued that the valuation done by the respondents was exorbitant, citing bill of entry and valuation statement by a Chartered Engineer. The petitioner contended that the valuation was unrealistic and should be interfered with.

The respondents, however, argued that the value declared by the petitioner was less than what they confessed in their statement under the Customs Act. They also highlighted a similar import by another importer for educational purposes, where the declared value was significantly lower than the valuation recommended by the Chartered Engineer. Based on these discrepancies, the respondents demanded a bond for double the value and included duty, fine, and penalty in the bank guarantee.

The court, considering the arguments presented, found no scope to interfere with the provisional assessment at that stage. The court noted that the respondents were securing their own interest by demanding the bond and bank guarantee, and without evidence of perversity in the order, the court was not inclined to interfere with Ext. P10 communication. Therefore, the writ petition failed and was dismissed.

---