9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 885 - HC - CustomsSeizure - Bill of entry declared no Customs Duty was attracted - Chartered Engineer report goods declared to be re-rollable material exigible to 5 per cent and 10 per cent - Held That - When duty was paid at the stand of department itself for first consignment and also willing it pay for second consignment seizure for more than 2 months cannot be justified. Further Seizure has not been effected by authorised officer. We direct immediate provisional release of goods.
Issues:
1. Quashing of seizure memos by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) 2. Declaration of goods as re-rollable material and secondary material 3. Payment of Customs Duty for first consignment 4. Delay in releasing goods for second consignment 5. Arbitrary and mala fide actions by the department 6. Lack of prompt action after seizure 7. Legality of seizure by an authorized officer 8. Conditions for provisional release of seized goods Analysis: 1. The petition sought the quashing of seizure memos dated 15th April, 2011, and 30th April, 2011, by the Intelligence Officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in relation to the purchase of Heavy Melting Steel Scrap (HMSS) on high sea sale basis. 2. The petitioner declared the goods as scrap not attracting any Customs Duty, but the DRI classified them as re-rollable material and secondary material, subject to 5% and 10% duty, respectively. The petitioner paid duty for the first consignment but faced delays and challenges for the second consignment due to the absence of a specific order under the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The DRI imposed conditions for the provisional release of the seized goods, including a bank guarantee and a declaration not to challenge the value of the goods. The Customs Department distanced itself from the matter, stating that the seizure was conducted by the DRI. 4. The petitioner argued that the department's actions were arbitrary, illegal, and mala fide, leading to prolonged seizure despite duty payment and willingness to pay for the second consignment. The delay was attributed to the passing of responsibility between departments. 5. The High Court found the respondents' actions to be arbitrary and mala fide, noting the lack of prompt action, unauthorized seizure, and unjustified conditions for provisional release. Previous judgments highlighted the need for authorized seizure, avoidance of conditions restricting challenges to goods' value, and the unjustifiability of bank guarantees for simple disputes. 6. Citing earlier cases, the High Court allowed the petition, directing the immediate provisional release of goods with modified conditions, excluding the declaration not to dispute value and the bank guarantee requirement. The release of the second consignment was conditioned on payment of Customs Duty as per the chartered engineer's valuation, emphasizing that the order did not impact the pending legal adjudication.
|
