2010 (11) TMI 204 - HC - Customs

Imported goods - Bonded Warehouse - Interim custody - Seize - The foreign made foreign liquor seized in this case were all imported to India they were originally deposited in Customs Bonded Warehouse New Delhi - As provided under Section 67 the foreign made foreign liquor so deposited at the Bonded Warehouse Delhi are being transported to be deposited at CWC Warehouse W. Island Kochi - The Customs officials are entitled to transfer the foreign liquor so deposited in one Bonded Warehouse to another Bonded Warehouse - Excise Officials are not entitled to seize such foreign liquor while it is in the custody of the Customs Officials either in the Bonded Warehouse or while transferring from one Bonded Warehouse to another Bonded Warehouse - Assistant Commissioner of Customs is entitled to get interim custody of the foreign made foreign liquor seized - But at the same time if the said foreign liquor is to be delivered to the third respondent or to any FL 3 licensee it can only be subject to the compliance with the provisions - Hence Petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Interim custody of foreign liquor seized by Excise Inspector - Interpretation of Customs Act provisions - Violation of Foreign Liquor Rules - Transfer of goods between warehouses - Jurisdiction of Customs and Excise Authorities.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a dispute regarding the interim custody of 1360 liters of foreign-made foreign liquor seized by the Excise Inspector near the south railway station. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs filed a petition seeking custody of the liquor, which was initially deposited in a Customs Bonded Warehouse in New Delhi and was being transported to a bonded warehouse in Kochi. The petitioner argued that under the Customs Act, the liquor could be transferred between warehouses under Section 67, and the Excise Authorities had no right to seize the goods during transportation.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, particularly Sections 58, 59, and 67, which govern warehousing and the transfer of goods between warehouses. It was established that the importer of dutiable goods could deposit them in a warehouse by executing a bond, and the owner had the right to move goods between warehouses with the permission of the proper officer. The court emphasized that the Customs officials had the authority to transfer goods between bonded warehouses, and the Excise Authorities could not interfere during such transfers.

Furthermore, the judgment addressed the argument raised by the Public Prosecutor regarding the violation of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, specifically Rule 3A, which regulates the purchase of foreign-made foreign liquor from Customs Bonded Warehouses. The court clarified that while the Customs Officials were entitled to interim custody of the seized liquor, any delivery to a licensee must comply with the Foreign Liquor Rules and the Kerala Abkari Act.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, set aside the previous order, and directed the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ernakulam to release the goods to the petitioner on executing a necessary bond for interim custody. The judgment reaffirmed the jurisdiction of Customs Officials in transferring goods between bonded warehouses and emphasized compliance with relevant laws for the delivery of liquor to licensees, ensuring no violation of statutory provisions.