Navkar Enterprises vs Union of India

The petitioner has approached this Court in Writ Jurisdiction complaining about inaction on the part of the respondents. The petitioner is an importer and has complained in the Writ Petition that he was constrained to approach this Court in case of an import which is under Open General License. The petitioner claims that M/s. Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. of South Korea is a pioneering industry in the manufacture of television sets, audio and other items. The company imports various items including television sets and they are imported either in entirety or completely knocked down condition and assembles in India and sales and distributes in India. M/s. Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. is a worldwide organization and what has been stated is that all the products of the leading manufacturers and its subsidiary have been registered and there are proper registration numbers. The petitioner states that there are various business concerns who also import the products of Samsung either manufactured or traded in different countries under OGL licensing scheme of the Government of India. The petitioner is one such entity and has acted upon a clarification issued by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, dated 26th August, 2013, the petitioner placed an order on one company in Dubai, to sell, supply and delivery of 265 pieces of Samsung Brand LED TV. A letter of credit was opened and the company sent a bill of lading and invoice which evidenced the shipment. It arrived at Nhava Sheva and that is evidenced by the document at Annexure-D and E. The bill of entry was filed through the Customs House Agent but the respondents have not permitted clearance of the goods, in the light of the requirement and which the petitioner was informed pertains to obtaining of document from Bureau of Indian Standards. The petitioner, therefore, claims release of this consignment as according to it there are all proper authorizations, permits and licenses. In response to this Writ Petition, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed and Para-2 of the affidavit of Mr. Manoj Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, Navi Mumbai, District Raigad, reads as under:--

"2. At the outset I say that the petition is premature. I say that the goods have yet to be examined. I say that the Bill of Entry has yet to be assessed. I say that no duty has been paid till date and none demanded. I say that this department has yet to receive information sought vide letter F. No. S/26-Misc-111/20145 Pt H Gr. VA/B, dated 15-5-2014. I say that vide this letter the petitioners above named were requested to submit valid BIS Certificate showing the Brand Name, Manufacturers/Suppliers Name, Model No. of LED TV imported. This information was sought to enable the department to decide the matter at the earliest. The letter invited attention to a query on EDI issued on 9-5-2014. The letter further invited the petitioners to utilize the provisions of Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short said Act), to avoid detention and demurrage charges. This letter was sent at one of the address mentioned in Petitioner''s letter addressed to Customs. This address is the same as shown at pages 29 (invoice) and page 30 (Bill of Entry) of the petition. The letter was returned unserved with a remark "left". The letter has been subsequently handed over to the representative of the petitioners on 11-6-2014. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 1 is a copy of the letter dated 15-5-2014."

In the light of Para-2 which is reproduced above and further Para-3 of this affidavit, we called upon Mr. Kanuga to take instructions and state as to whether the petitioner or its representative is ready and willing to appear before the Authorized Officer and permit him to undertake the exercise in terms of Para-2 of the affidavit. Equally, Mr. Jetley states that the Authorized Officer is still willing to take the requisite steps as aforestated.

Although Mr. Kanuga submits that the petitioner denies each and every statement raised in the affidavit, it is ready and willing to appear before the Authorized Officer as the consignment is held up for more than 3 months. In the light of the above and without examining the rival contentions, so also the claim on merits, we direct that the petitioner shall appear before the Authorized Officer by Friday i.e. 4th July, 2014. The concerned Authorized Officer shall complete the exercise in terms of Para-2 of the affidavit reproduced above by 11th July, 2014. Our order should not be construed as a mandate to take any further proceedings including issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioner. We leave the matter completely to the Authorized Officer and he should take such action as is permissible in law. Equally, only in the event, any such action is taken, that we clarify that all contentions as raised in the present petition and defences of the petitioner are available for being raised before the appropriate forum and at an appropriate stage. We clarify that we have expressed no opinion on the rival contentions. We accept the statements which have been made by Mr. Jetley on instructions as undertakings given to the Court. We direct that the exercise as above shall be completed by 11th July, 2014. No further extension shall be granted. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order.