The petitioner is aggrieved with the detention of goods at the entry check post evidenced by Ext.P10. The admitted facts are that the petitioner is supplying a High Pressure Separator Condenser to the 4th respondent herein. The said Condenser is of two parts, both of which were transported separately in two multi axle vehicles. The goods were detained for three reasons; one was that though the tag number specified in the Condenser under transport was 'IFE 204A', the letter accompanying the transport showed the tag number as 'IFE 204B'. There is also a difference in the invoice and in Form 8F declaration made by the petitioner . The further ground for detention was that the invoice accompanied was a duplicate one and the invoice date is as early as on 31.3.2014. 2. For better clarity, the 4th respondent was heard.
WP(C).15550/14 2 The learned counsel who took notice for the 4th respondent has got instructions from the 3rd respondent and submits that, admittedly there was some confusion with respect to the letter accompanying the goods. The earlier consignment was having tag No.IFE 204B which is admitted as received at the premises of the 4th respondent by Ext.P12 letter. In fact, the present letter should have accompanied that transport and this is stated as a bona fide mistake. The difference in value shown in the invoice and Form 8F declaration is said to be only by reason of the Form 8F uploaded at the facilitation centre, adjacent to the check post. In fact, the actual Form 8F which was uploaded earlier is produced as Ext.P9 which shows the value as disclosed in the invoice itself. The further defect of the duplicate invoice having accompanied the transport was for the reason that, two parts of the very same Condenser is covered by one invoice and since the original invoice accompanied the earlier transport, the duplicate was sent with the present transport. The invoice date being of an early date is also WP(C).15550/14 3 sought to be explained since the transport was in multi axle vehicles which require special permission to be transported. These facts have been stated in Ext.P11.
3. In the above circumstances, it is only proper that the goods be released by the check post authorities, on production of a certified copy of this judgment , on simple bond without sureties executed by the petitioner as also the 4th respondent. Since the claim is that the condenser transported is installed in the premises of the 4th respondent, necessarily adjudication shall be proceeded with only after ensuring such installation, from the Assessing Officer of the 4th respondent.
Writ petition disposed of.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs //True Copy//