2016 (7) TMI 1243 - HC - Customs

Detention of goods - evasion of Safeguard Duty - provisional release - Held that - this Court is of the view that a direction can be issued so that the entire proceedings can be completed instead of issuing a direction for considering provisional release. However, while doing so, this Court indicates clearly that the prayer as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted as a writ of certiorari cannot be issued against a Detention Notice. In any event, the Department cannot be injuncted from taking up the matter for investigation. Department themselves released the goods covered under other Bills of Entry, which were also the subject matter of detention, this Court is inclined to direct the respondents 2 & 3 to draw samples from the goods which have been detained, in the presence of the petitioner, both from the coils which contain labels indicating the grade and also from the coils which do not contain such labels, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and send the same to the National Test House, Taramani, Chennai, for testing the grade of the coils and for submission of the report - petition partly allowed.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to Detention Notice, Safeguard Duty Evasion, Confiscation under Customs Act, Provisional Release, Testing of Goods, Writ of Certiorari

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Detention Notice: The petitioner challenged the Detention Notice dated 03.02.2016, which detained imported consignments under various Bills of Entry. The Detention Notice cited an ongoing investigation into possible Safeguard Duty evasion as the reason for detention. The petitioner sought relief through a Writ Petition.

2. Safeguard Duty Evasion: The respondents contended that incriminating evidence was found in the impugned consignments, making them liable for confiscation under section 110 of the Customs Act. The investigation focused on stickers affixed to steel coils by the supplier, indicating the grade and potential liability for Safeguard Duty.

3. Confiscation under Customs Act: The respondents planned proceedings under the Customs Act for potential confiscation of the goods due to the alleged evasion of Safeguard Duty. The petitioner expressed readiness to subject the imported goods to testing by the National Test House to determine the grade of the coils.

4. Provisional Release: The Court considered the possibility of provisional release of the goods. It was noted that some bills of entry had been cleared during the pendency of the Writ Petition, while one bill of entry remained under investigation.

5. Testing of Goods: The Court directed the respondents to draw samples from the detained goods, both from coils with grade labels and those without, for testing at the National Test House. The petitioner was to bear the cost of testing. Upon receipt of the test report, the respondents were to assess the bill of entry and issue appropriate orders within two weeks.

6. Writ of Certiorari: The Court clarified that while rejecting the prayer to quash the detention notice, it disposed of the Writ Petition with directions for testing and assessment of the goods. The Court emphasized that a writ of certiorari could not be issued against a Detention Notice, and the Department could proceed with the investigation.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenge to the Detention Notice, the issue of Safeguard Duty evasion, the potential confiscation under the Customs Act, the possibility of provisional release, the testing of goods to determine grade, and the limitations regarding the issuance of a writ of certiorari against a Detention Notice. The detailed analysis provided a comprehensive overview of the Court's decision and the actions to be taken by the parties involved.