2014 (7) TMI 777

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....odification of the demand made in the letter dated 19.09.2013. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of importing and trading various consumer goods such as air conditioners, televisions, audio equipments, perfumes etc., During the course of their business, the officials of the second respondent conducted examination of the goods imported by the petitioner vide Bill of Entry No.4565925 dated 06.09.2011 and alleged certain discrepancy in the quantity of the goods declared, which according to the petitioner was due to inadvertence on the part of the employees of the supplier. Due to such alleged discrepancy, the goods were seized by the respondents. On 22.12.2011 a show cause notice was issued, which the petitioner challenged before....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the conditions imposed by the third respondent for provisional release of the goods is a onerous condition and such condition imposed by the third respondent would amount indirectly denying the petitioner to get the goods released. The goods are electronic goods and they are lying in the custody of the respondents for the past three years. The respondents refused to release the goods to the petitioner one way or the other inspite of several directions issued by this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Commissioner vs. Navasakthi Industries Priv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he second respondent would contend that for releasing the goods, the value, as adopted by the department, has to be taken into consideration. 6. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respective standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The only question arise for consideration in this writ petition is whether the conditions imposed by the third respondent in the communication dated 19.09.2013 are onerous and if so, what are the conditions that can be imposed on the petitioner. 7. Admittedly, the goods imported by the petitioner are lying in the ware house of the respondents department since 2011. The petitioner has also earlier filed a writ petition in WP No. 4324 of 2012 before this Court, which was take....