* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT New Delhi
% Date of Decision:
+ W.P.(C) 721/2012 EASTRON ENTERPRISES INC. ..... Petitioner
+ W.P.(C) 722/2012 MATAJI ENTERPRISES ..... Petitioner
+ W.P.(C) 723/2012 CELESTIAL ENTERPRISES ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Pradeep Jain, Adv.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Kamal Nijhawan, sr. standing counsel with Mr. R. Ashok, Mr. Jitender Kumar and Mr. Sumit Gaur, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR
SANJIV KHANNA,J: (ORAL)
As identical controversy arises for consideration in these three writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Eastron Overseas Inc., Mataji Enterprises & M/s. Celestial Enterprises by bill of entries dated 12.12.2011, 14.12.2011 and 7.12.2011 had asked the Commissioner of Customs at ICD, Tughlakabad,
3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition in this Court alleging that the respondent custom authority is delaying the release of the said consignment by taking the plea that the goods imported were old and used and therefore, they are “Electronic Waste”. The petitioners have controverted the said plea and have submitted report of a chartered engineer in support. It is their contention that Data Graphic Display Tubes are not old tubes but are new tubes and they are not refurbished and reconditioned.
4. When these writ petitions came up for hearing on 6.2.2012, notice was issued for today’s date and it was directed that it is open to the respondents to undertake necessary tests. The respondents were also asked to pass appropriate order within reasonable time.
5. In the reply filed by the respondents, they have stated that as per the prevailing Import and Export Policy for the period 2009-2014, import of second hand goods except capital goods is restricted and special import license is required for import of second hand goods. Data Graphic Display Tubes are also covered by said restriction i.e. second hand data graphic display tubes require special import license. Counsel for the respondents has further stated that they have drawn samples and these have been sent to a testing laboratory for verification to decide whether or not the goods imported are new or second hand. Respondents have written a letter dated 17.2.2012 calling upon the petitioners to produce the manufacturing technical specification/ writer/ catalogue/ literature, etc. The respondents submit that they had obtained information from a chartered engineer, who has opined that the goods in question are old and second hand.
6. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submit that they have replied to the said letter saying that they do not have catalogue/literature and these were stock material. The contention of the petitioner is that the consignment are lying since December, 2011 and the delay is causing immense hardship and financial loss to the petitioners on account of demurrage and detention charges.
7. We need not examine and enter into the controversy on merits. The assessment order in original is yet to be passed. Adjudication has not taken place.
8. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the delay which has occurred, it is directed that the respondent authority will pass an order-in-original determining whether the goods in question can be imported to
Petitioner/authorized representative will appear before the adjudicating officer on
Dasti under signature of the Court Master.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
R.V.EASWAR, J.
