High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 07 KL CK 0170

Rasa International vs Commissioner Of Customs, Customs House, Willingtom Island, Cochin-682009

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 14 July 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.M.Badar, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 13609 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 353 words

A.M.Badar, J

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has suffered order at Ext.P2 for absolute confiscation of the impugned

goods with a declared assessible value of Rs.18,28,844.85/-apart from imposition of penalty. It is submitted that the petitioner has ordered for import of

mosquito squatters on 27.01.2021. However, shipping of those goods was delayed and those goods were actually shipped on 29.04.2021. In between,

the date of order and the date of shipment, the DGFT had issued a notification on 26.04.2021 prohibiting import of mosquito squatters of value of

Rs.121.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had therefore requested for re-export of goods and his counter part has agreed to

accept those goods if those are re-exported within 15 days. My attention is drawn to the communication at Ext.P4 from the concerned company who

had exported those goods to India. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wants to export those goods and in identical

situation, vide order at Ext.P5, the importer therein was permitted to re-export the goods on payment of redemption fine.

3.

The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the petition and submits that now the order of absolute confiscation, Ext.P1 has

already been passed.

4.

It is seen from the order at Ext.P1 that in identical situation, the Officer of the concerned Department had permitted re-export of the prohibited

goods on imposition of redemption fine as well as the penalty. In the wake of order at Ext.P5, the petitioner also deserves the consideration of his case

by the 2nd respondent for one more time as now the petitioner wants to re-export those goods.

In this view of the matter, the impugned order at Ext.P2 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration of the 2nd respondent

according to law. The petitioner is permitted to urge the issue of permitting him to re-export the goods on payment of redemption fine and penalty as

has been done in an order at Ext.P5. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.