2016 (6) TMI 1195 - HC - Customs

Release of detained cargo - toys imported from China - the petitioner requests for release of goods covered in Bill of Entry No. 293510, dated 24-8-2009. The said request has been rejected on the ground that the goods have not been tested - petitioner prays for release of goods pursuant to testing - Held that - the samples of toys are sent for testing - the respondent shall proceed further to release the consignment, if the test report certifies that the samples meet the required compliance - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order declining cargo release
2. Testing of goods by Indian Institute of Technology
3. Request for release of goods in Bill of Entry No. 293510
4. Clarification of earlier judgment by Hon'ble Division Bench
5. Direction for testing and release of goods by Central Revenue Control Laboratory

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash the order refusing to release cargo covered in Bill of Entry No. 293510 dated 24-8-2009. The petitioner imported toys from China and filed three Bills of Entries. The department did not permit clearance, leading to an appeal to the Hon'ble Division Bench, which directed the respondent to send samples for testing to Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Chennai.

2. A miscellaneous petition was filed to clarify the order, as IIT Chennai was unable to provide a report due to lacking technology. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs was instructed to forward samples to Central Revenue Control Laboratory in New Delhi for testing. The department was to submit a report within four weeks.

3. Following the test report, most samples met compliance, and goods were released except those in Bill of Entry No. 293510. The petitioner's request for release was denied as the goods were not tested separately. The court directed the respondent to send samples to Central Revenue Control Laboratory for testing and release based on compliance certification.

4. The petitioner's counsel requested a time frame for testing and release of goods. The court noted that without testing, goods cannot be released. Therefore, the respondent was directed to forward samples to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory within six weeks for testing and subsequent release upon compliance certification.

5. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for testing and release of goods, in line with the earlier judgment. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed without costs.