9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Petition filed u/s Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for release of imported goods. 2. Classification of imported goods under Customs Act, 1962. 3. Dispute over import restrictions and confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act. 4. Appeal process under Section 128 of the Act. The petitioner, a proprietorship concern dealing in import and trading of old and used multi-functional devices, filed a writ petition seeking the release of a consignment of goods imported from Hong Kong. The petitioner argued that the goods were freely importable as per the Foreign Trade Policy of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Despite multiple communications and requests for clearance, the goods were not released due to being categorized as restricted post-amendment. The petitioner claimed heavy demurrage charges due to the delay in clearance, emphasizing the need for provisional release based on previous court directions to clear goods within 3 days. Respondent authorities filed a written statement stating that the imported goods were classified as old and used digital multi-function printing and copying machines, falling under a restricted category post-amendment to the Foreign Trade Policy. Consequently, the goods were deemed liable for confiscation u/s 111(d) of the Customs Act. An order was passed for redemption of goods upon payment of a substantial fine, giving the petitioner the option to challenge the confiscation order through an appeal u/s 128 of the Act before the Commissioner Appeals. The petitioner contended that the goods were purchased before the import restrictions came into effect, highlighting the financial burden of demurrage charges incurred during the clearance delay. The counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 argued that the appeal process under Section 128 of the Act was available for challenging the confiscation order, indicating that the issue was yet to be fully adjudicated. The Court observed that while the petitioner's appeal was pending, it was appropriate for the appellate authority to adjudicate on the matter. The Court directed the Commissioner Appeals to expedite the hearing of the appeal within 15 days from the receipt of the order, emphasizing the need for a swift resolution to address the petitioner's concerns regarding demurrage charges.
|
