TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (4) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(87)/Misc., Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development Secretariat. By another letter from the Chief Controller of Imports Exports F. No. 2/400/87/M7AC/374 dated 25-7-1990, the petitioner was asked to step up its export to enrich the foreign exchange reserve of our country. The machines were imported by the petitioner on 16-7-1990 under a Bill of Entry No. 028980, dated 16-7-1990. When the machines were about to be released for home consumption, the goods were taken over by the Special Investigation Branch of Custom House on 16-7-1990. After examining by the Special Investigation Branch on 31-7-1990, these were about to be released. But, on 1-8-1990, the goods were seized by the Department of Revenue Int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the second respondent has filed a counter stating that the detention was due to no fault or negligence of the petitioner or of the second respondent, that this respondent informed the clearing agent that under the provisions of the Scale of Rates which was statutory in nature, only 150 days were allowed for levy of concessional demurrage and advised the clearing agent to clear the consignment after availing the concession allowed by this respondent. The consignment was finally cleared on 25-10-1991 on payment of Rs. 82,478 as demurrage charges after availing the concession allowed for detention for Import Trade Control formalities. 4.There is, absolutely, no doubt that the petitioner enjoyed the benefit of import concession and the machin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner therein the warehousing and demurrage charges paid by him. 8.In Surabhi Leather (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - 1992 (59) E.L.T. 253 (Cal.) and Om Shankar Biyani v. Collector of Customs - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 54 (Cal.) the decision in Padan Kumar Agarwal v. Additional Collector of Customs and S.A. International v. Collector of Customs were followed and it was held that the detention proceedings ended in favour of the petitioner and the Department must reimburse the petitioner on the loss suffered by the petitioner therein. 9.There is, absolutely, no doubt that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for. 10.Mr. Udayakumar, learned Counsel for the first respondent, submitted that the entire correspondence relied on by the pe....