2012 (12) TMI 1110 - HC - Customs

The case of petitioner is that since, there is no order for clearance qua this consignment, the Commissioner should have deliberated with respect to the said consignment as well - Held that - the Commissioner of Customs is directed to deliberate with respect to whether or not clearance ought to be made qua the consignment covered under bill of entry no.3431758 dated 06.05.2011 and thereafter pass an appropriate order, as deemed fit, in accordance with the law - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Provisional clearance of consignments under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Disposal of representation for provisional clearance by the Commissioner of Customs.
3. Grievance regarding the clearance of a third consignment not covered in the order dated 10.12.2012.
4. Directive for the Commissioner of Customs to deliberate on the clearance of the third consignment.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to the provisional clearance of consignments under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court directed the Commissioner of Customs to dispose of the petitioner's representation for provisional clearance of consignments based on terms found suitable by exercising powers under the mentioned section.

2. The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Imports) issued an order dated 10.12.2012 regarding the provisional clearance of specific consignments. The order included conditions such as the execution of a bond for the full value of the seized goods, a bank guarantee to cover differential duties and possible adjudication levies, and the drawing of representative samples for testing purposes. The petitioner agreed to the conditions imposed for two consignments covered in the order but raised a concern about a third consignment not addressed in the order.

3. The petitioner's grievance centered around the third consignment, covered under bill of entry no.3431758 dated 06.05.2011, which was also cleared through the Chennai Sea Port. The petitioner argued that since there was no clearance order for this consignment, the Commissioner should have deliberated on it as well.

4. Consequently, the Court directed the Commissioner of Customs to consider whether clearance should be granted for the consignment covered under bill of entry no.3431758 dated 06.05.2011. The Commissioner was instructed to pass an appropriate order concerning this consignment in accordance with the law within a timeframe of four weeks from the date of the judgment to ensure expeditious resolution.

In conclusion, with the directive for the Commissioner to address the clearance of the third consignment and the petitioner's decision to not pursue the writ petition further, the Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly.