By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, MAY 18, 2017: THE petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondents to release the items covered under the Bill of Entry.

Incidentally, in respect of the very same Bill of Entry, an order in original dated 03.01.2017 was passed by the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the declared value self assessed by the Importer/petitioner and re-assessing the subject goods on the enhanced unit price value.

This order was challenged, but the Commissioner(A), by an order dated 14.02.2017, rejected the same.

Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred further appeal before the CESTAT.

In the mean time, as mentioned, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking release of the goods.

The High Court observed -

"5. I do not think that the petitioner can seek indulgence of this Court by filing the present writ petition, more particularly, when he has chosen to file an appeal before the CESTAT, challenging the concurrent findings of the authority, as stated supra and the said appeal is also yet to be numbered.

6. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy before the CESTAT in the appeal including by seeking for an interim relief, if such relief is maintainable. Without doing so, the petitioner is not justified in approaching this Court.

7. Therefore, I am inclined not to entertain this writ petition not on the merits of the matter, but on the reason that the petitioner has to work out such remedy only before the CESTAT where he has already filed an appeal."

The Writ Petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the CESTATseeking for interim relief.

(See 2017-TIOL-942-HC-MAD-CUS)