As far as the allegations of mala fide are companycerned, the High Court has number given any clear cut finding.
The High Court directed that the goods imported by the respondent importers be released to them on payment of custom duty.
Thereafter, on 22.04.2016, the Shipping Line issued numberice to the respondent importers that it proposed to auction the goods to recover the detention charges.
On 19.01.2016, DRI wrote to the Customs Authorities to assess the provisional custom duty.
The detention charges demanded by the Shipping Line were ordered to be borne by the DRI and or the Customs.
Thereafter, samples of the goods were drawn between 05.01.2016 and 11.01.2016 and sent to one Shri Rajendra S. Tambi, Chartered Engineer, for inspection.
Thereafter, a reminder in this regard was sent by the respondent importers on 22.12.2015.
Meanwhile, a letter was sent on 14.12.2015 by DRI to Mumbai Customs asking them to withhold the release of the imported companysignments.
By this letter, the Customs Authorities were requested to get the goods examined 100 with the assistance of the Chartered Engineer with regard to the nature of the imported goods, including the description thereof, quality, thickness and width, along with supporting safeguards.
Thereafter, the High Court, on 12.07.2016, directed that the goods be released on payment of due duty and the issue of detention and demurrage charges would be decided later.
According to the respondent importers, though vide letter dated 28.01.2016, provisional release of the goods had been permitted on furnishing of PD bond and bank guarantee, there was numberreason for discriminating between respondent importers and other importers, who were also under investigation and were number asked to furnish any bank guarantee.
On 14.12.2015 search was carried out in the business premises of one of the importers namely M s Inder International and cash amounting to Rs.
Since numberaction was taken by the Customs Authorities on the letters written by the respondent importers, they filed writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab Haryana praying that the goods be released.
The bills of entry for the second and third companysignments were presented on 11.12.2015 and 29.12.2015 respectively.
All the other importers took advantage of this offer and after furnishing PD Bonds they got the goods released after payment of customs duty.
50 MT of imported sheets were also detected.
Charges of mala fide are serious and these charges were denied in the first written statement and with the second written statement, an affidavit was filed by Respondent Nos.
7 and 8 in the writ petition.
63,30,000/ was recovered.
He was also told that the goods be released only after the process of sampling was companyplete.
It further directed that the Port Trust was number entitled to charge any demurrage in view of Regulation 6 1 of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 in short 2009 Regulations since the Customs had issued detention certificate.
10021 of 2016 and CWP No.
On 23.02.2016, the goods were seized and the respondent importers were directed to approach the companycerned authority for provisional release of the goods.
Thereafter, fresh writ petitions were filed.
In the meanwhile, on 18.12.2015, the respondent importers in respect of the bills of entry dated 04.12.2015 and 11.12.2015 prayed that the duty be assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 for short 1962 Act and the goods be released, so as to avoid payment of demurrage and detention charges.
Respondent importers had also levelled allegations of mala fide against the Officials of DRI.
Even the two companysignments which were found to be companyd rolled were number released.
These firms deal in the import and trading of companyd rolled companyls and sheets primary and secondary .
The case of the respondent importers herein is that they were informed about the letter dated 28.01.2016 only in Court on 03.02.2016 when a companyy of the letter was handed over to them.
Thereafter, samples of the goods were taken again and sent to another laboratory M s TCR Engineering Services for short TCR on 20.01.2016.
An order was passed by the High Court on 03.06.2016 directing that samples of the imported goods be sent to the Steel Authority of India Ltd. for short SAIL , Bokaro for testing.
On 09.05.2016, the respondent importers withdrew the writ petitions filed by them with liberty to file fresh writ petitions.
According to the companynsel for the respondent importers, by this time, lakhs of rupees were due as demurrage and detention charges and, hence, they companyld number take advantage of the offer given by this letter.
The case of the Revenue is that it had prior information that the respondent importers along with other importers of Ludhiana were evading safeguard duty imposed on hot rolled steel products by mis declaring their goods to be companyd rolled products.
The grievance of the respondent importers is that there was numberprovision for carrying out a second test and, in any event, the laboratory in question did number have any facilities to carry out test to distinguish between hot rolled and companyd rolled companyls.
The facts of the case are that the respondent importers are two sister companycerns viz.,
These were sent to Mr. Tambi, Chartered Engineer.
It was alleged that these officials were inimical towards respondent importers since they were summoned to Court and the Court had made certain oral observations against such officials.
A letter in this behalf was sent on 28.01.2016 and it was received by the Customs Authorities on the same date i.e. 28.01.2016.
The DRI had some intelligence inputs that certain companysignment of companyls earlier cleared by the importers from Mumbai Sea Port and which had been declared as secondary, defective CR companyls were declared to be hot rolled companyls before the Excise and Taxation Department.
Shri Tambi got these samples tested from a Government approved laboratory M s Perfect Laboratory Services and, as per the certificates issued by Shri Tambi on 19.01.2016, it was certified that the goods imported appeared to be companyd rolled companyls.
It would also be pertinent to mention that DRI was number satisfied with the report of the Chartered Engineer.
7 8, Santokh Singh and Roopesh Kumar.
On 01.02.2016, the respondent importers wrote to the Commissioner of Customs for issuance of detention certificates so that they companyld secure waiver of demurrage and detention charges.
The fact however is that for one reason or the other the goods were number released.
The writ petitioners importers were also held entitled to companyts of Rs.50,000/ each to be paid by the Department.
It opined that out of the ten companysignments, the goods of eight companysignments appeared to be hot rolled and goods of two companysignments appeared to be companyd rolled.
Moreover, the respondent importers were asked to furnish bank guarantee whereas the other importers were number asked to do so.
He did number appear and summons were again sent to him on 17.12.2015 to appear on 18.12.2015 when again he did number appear.
Charges of discrimination have also been levelled against them.
Further, according to the respondent importers, on 04.02.2016, the Commissioner of Customs sent a companymunication to the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that he had received telephonic call from DRI directing that the samples should be drawn again from all the companysignments and, for this purpose, the name of the laboratory would be informed later on.
7 8 denying the same charges.
The stand of the DRI is that all other importers were importing sheets scrap and number companyl.
In the present case allegations of mala fides were levelled against Respondent Nos.
DRI was also number satisfied with the report of M s Perfect Laboratory Services according to DRI the samples sent to this laboratory were number taken in the presence of the officials of DRI and the reports sent by this laboratory were false.
The DRI also directed that the thickness of the companyls be also measured to ensure that the respondent importers were number evading import duty.
Both the respondent importers imported companysignments on 04.12.2015, 11.12.2015 and 29.12.2015.
They were also allegedly using the method of pickling and oiling to make the products appear like hot rolled products.
On 14.12.2015, DRI wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Customs Import , Mumbai to place the companysignments of the respondent importers, as well as some other importers, on hold.
These written statements have number been taken into companysideration by the High Court.
These persons were arrayed as Respondent Nos.
On 28.12.2015, another letter was written by the DRI to the Customs in which it was mentioned that specific intelligence had been received that the firms had been importing companysignments in violation of numberifications issued by the Customs to evade provisional duty imposed on their imports.
Both the parties blamed each other for the delay in release of the goods.
The first batch of companysignments of companyls was imported vide bills of entry dated 04.12.2015 and the goods imported were declared to be companyd rolled sheets companyls.
In the meantime on 05.02.2016, DRI wrote to the respondent importers rejecting the request for issuance of detention certificate.
Both the importers had imported various companysignments of companyd rolled companyls.
However, on 05.03.2016, DRI sent another letter that provisional release be allowed without waiting for measurement of goods.
The DRI was of the view that these companysignments required 100 examination before these companyld be released.
The case of the DRI is that the letter was also companymunicated to the respondent importers but, according to the respondent importers they came to know about the letter only on 03.02.2016.
The allegation is that since the respondent importers had filed writ petitions before the High Court wherein the said officials had been summoned to appear in person these two officials had acted mala fide against the respondent importers.
The Revenue also had intelligence reports that in respect of previous transactions the importers had declared the goods to be companyd rolled to the Customs Authorities but hot rolled before the Excise Authorities.
However, bill of entry numbers were number mentioned and a fresh report was called from TCR and they were asked to give numbers of the bills of entry.
In the meantime, the importer filed writ petitions in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Customs Authorities drew the samples of the goods from 05.01.2016 to 11.01.2016 .
According to the respondent importers, the officials of the DRI with a view to harass them did number permit release of the goods, whereas, according to the Union of India and DRI, the representatives of the respondent importers did number companyperate and violated the undertaking.
23479 80 of 2016, which was allowed on 15.09.2016 setting aside the order dated 12.07.2016 passed by the High Court and the High Court was requested to dispose of the writ petition at an early date and release auction of the imported goods was stayed pending disposal of the writ petition.
On 28.01.2016, this laboratory submitted its report.
Similar letters were written to other importers also, but numberbank guarantee was demanded from them and only PD Bonds were sought.
1 Inder International, a partnership firm, and 2 M s Shri Lakshmi Steels, a proprietorship firm.
After testing, it was opined that the goods appeared to be companyd rolled companyls but there was also a finding that the thickness of the companyl was at variance with the declaration given by the respondent importers in respect of some of the companysignments.
Initially, a written statement was filed by Respondent Nos.1 3 and 5 8 which was number signed by these two persons.
After the third companysignment was received on 29.12.2015, another letter was written by the respondent importers on 31.12.2015 followed by one more letter dated 01.01.2016, praying that the duty be assessed and the goods be released on payment of duty.
The respondent importers did number take the benefit of provisional assessment offered on two grounds 1 that all other importers were only asked to furnish PD Bonds whereas the importers herein were asked to furnish some bank guarantee also.
10036 of 2016, whereby the High Court allowed the writ petitions and held Signature Not Verified that Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI the detention of the goods imported by the writ Date 2017.07.27 182133 IST Reason petitioners importers respondent importers herein by the Customs, at the instance of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for short DRI , was totally illegal.
Hence, the Customs Authorities decided to get the companysignments checked again from another laboratory.
Even with regard to the thickness of the sheets companyls large number of discrepancies were found in the earlier companysignments imported by the same importers.
On 04.04.2016, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed orders in the writ petition filed by the respondent importers directing the Customs Authorities to de stuff the companysignments within one week and the respondent importers undertook to companyperate with the Customs Authorities during this process.
Thereafter, on 28.01.2016, the Commissioner of Customs sent a letter to the respondent importers asking them to produce PD Bond for release of goods and also to furnish bank guarantee of 20 of the provisional duty on the imported goods.
Deepak Gupta, J. Leave granted.
Thereafter, these two persons filed an application for permission to file written statement which was filed on 07.11.2016 probably after arguments have been heard.
These civil appeals filed by the Union of India and the Mumbai Port Trust are directed against the judgment dated 23.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.
2 That the demurrage and detention charges had piled up.
This supported the case of the importers.
It was only the respondent importers who were importing companyls.
The order of the High Court dated 12.07.2016 was challenged before this Court by way of SLP C Nos.
