Rakesh Divedi v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

1. The writ petition was filed seeking direction to the respondents to release the goods of the petitioner covered under Bill of Entry no.232007[7] dated 10tl'November, 2010, which had been seized by the respondent.

2. Notice of the petition was issued'

3. The counsel for the respondent on 28tr'March,2011 infonned this Cour.t that the investigations had been cornpleted and the goods could be released to the petitioner upon the petitioner paying the appropriate duty.

4. The counsel for the petitioner inforrns that the goods have since been F released.

5. It was however the contention of the counsel for the petitioner on that date that the goods had arrived in India in October,2010; that the petitioner was not pelnitted to clear the goods on the ground that they were subject rnatter of investigation; that the investigation went on for an unduly long 1/- % 2011:DHC:17201 lt Ar.J tirne burdening the petitioner with demurrage charges fa[1] in excess of the value of the goods. It was fuither the contention of the counsel for the petitioner on that date that in a large number of cases, the irnporters had to suffer demurrage chalges on account of undue delay of the respondent in cornpleting the investigation and during which time neither the goods ale seized nor any show cause notice is given to the importers' Prayer thus was made for a direction to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) so that investigations could be done in a time bound lnanner.

6. The respondent has since filed a short affidavit on the aforesaid aspect in which it is denied that there was any delay in the instant case in cornpletion of the investigation. With respect to the grievance of the petitioner of suffering demuffage charges, it is stated that Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962 enables the importer to store the imported goods in a warehouse pending clearance and the petitioner in the instant case did not avail of the said provision and hence is not entitled to rnake a grievance as to the dernurrage char.ges. It is fruther stated in the affidavit that the petitioner herein is part of a syndicate indulging in fi'audulent irnports and investigation was recluiled to be conducted on all aspects and has been completed expeditious$.

7. The counsel for the petitioner states that now, only the claim of the petitioner against the respondent towards dernun'age charges survives in this petition.

8. The same has however not been clairned in the writ petition. g. It has been encluired from the counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner did not avail of Section 49 (supra). The counsel states that the petitioner on making oral representations was being orally assured by the 2/- L ^ officials of the respondent that the goods will be released shortly and as such need was not felt to avail of Section 49. He also confi'overts the other allegations in the affidavit of the respondents'

10. Needless to add the counsel for the respondent denies that any such assurances were rneted out.

11. In the aforesaid factual scenalio, since the relief clairned in the petition has becorne infiuctuous, it is not deemed expedient to adjudicate on the cluestion of delays if any in investigation or to issue any general direction with resPect thereto. The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW'J JULY O[6],2OLI pp.. 3/-:|\: