TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (5) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt. 5.The respondent had filed four Bills of Entry bearing (1) No. 102619, dated 29-1-1991; (2) No. 102815, dated 15-2-1991; (3) No. 102878, dated 20-2-1991 and (4) No. 103166, dated 19-3-1991. The Bills of Entry were in respect of Synthetic waste (soft quality) imported by the respondent. The respondent claimed release of the goods free of duty in terms of valid import/export pass-book. The goods were examined and samples were drawn for testing. According to the appellants, the goods imported were prime fibre and not soft waste. The value according the appellants was not commensurate with the quality of goods under import. Hence a show cause notice was issued to the respondent in each case. 6.In the meanwhile, since the goods were no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il Writ Petition No. 802 of 1991 by its order dated 24-7-1991. Ultimately the dispute went up to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which remanded the matter pertaining to all the four Bills of Entry to the Principal Collector, subsequently designated as Chief Commissioner, for a fresh adjudication. The Chief Commissioner, by his order dated 11-8-1995, ordered the unconditional release of goods under all the four Bills of Entry. 8.In the meanwhile, in August 1994, because of the delay in disposal of Departmental proceedings, the respondent filed a fresh writ petition before the Delhi High Court being Civil Writ Petition No. 3469 of 1994 for release of goods under the four Bills of Entry. In the interim application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....31-7-1991, was not complied with in so far as payment of interest was concerned, by the respondent. Hence the detention order was made. This detention order was in force when Civil Writ Petition No. 3469 of 1994 was filed by the respondent in the Delhi High Court. 10.Writ Petition No. 3469 of 1994 was disposed of by the Delhi High Court by the impugned judgment and order of 15-7-1996. Under the said judgment and order, the Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The High Court examined the plea of the appellants that the goods were not being released because of the detention order of 23-6-1993. The High Court in this connection, referred to an earlier detention order passed by the Customs authorities on 14-2-1992 on similar grounds. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1991; and directed that the goods should be released without recovery of any demurrage or container charges. The present appellants were directed to issue the requisite certificate in terms of the undertaking given by it on 3rd of April, 1991 within a period of four weeks so that the present respondent could get the goods released. 12.Pursuant to this order, a detention certificate was issued on 15-10-1996. However, although the Container Corporation of India had waived 96% of their charges, the Shipping Corporation of India, out of a total amount of Rs. 13,11,004.33 said to be due to it, waived a substantial amount but was insisting upon payment of Rs. 56,43,470/-. Therefore, the entire demurrage and container chargers were not being wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent. In respect of these disputes a suit was filed in the Delhi High Court by one of the partners being Suit No. 748 of 1997 in which initially on 11-4-1997, and again on 27-1-1998, there was an order of injunction obtained preventing the other partners from taking delivery of the said goods. 16.In the present appeal the appellants have challenged the impugned order of the High Court dated 15-7-1996 and the second order in the contempt petition dated 19-3-1997. They have contended that they should not have been asked to issue a detention certificate or to bear demurrage and container detention charges. Obviously, both the orders of the Delhi High Court turn entirely upon the special facts of this particular case. It has noted that test....