2013 (6) TMI 471 - HC - Customs

Evasion of payment of huge amount of customs duty - detention of goods - per unit value of the apples has been priced at U.S. Dollars 25 to 27, whereas in the agreement entered into between the foreign supplier and the petitioner shows the price of apples per unit is between 11 to 19 U.S. Dollars, in various grades and sizes - Held that - As as the goods in question are perishable in nature provisional release of goods is to allowed with a condition for petitioner to pay 30% of the differential duty, and for the balance amount, the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond. On compliance of both the conditions, the respondents shall release the goods in question, forthwith. However it would be open to the respondents to pass final orders, on completion of the adjudication process, in respect of the payment of customs duty, liable to be paid by the petitioner, if any, and to initiate other appropriate proceedings against the petitioner, if he is found to have evaded payment of the customs duty, as alleged by the respondents, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The petitioner shall co-operate, fully, in the proceedings that may be initiated by the respondents, for the assessment of customs duty.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in assessment and release of imported goods
2. Allegations of undervaluation and evasion of customs duty
3. Provisional clearance under Customs Act, 1962
4. Perishable nature of goods and release conditions

Delay in assessment and release of imported goods:
The petitioner, a fruit trader, imported apples from the United States for several years. The goods arrived at Chennai Seaport but faced delays in assessment and release. The petitioner sought provisional assessment under the Customs Act, 1962, due to the perishable nature of the goods. Allegations of undervaluation and evasion of customs duty were raised by the respondents, causing further delays.

Allegations of undervaluation and evasion of customs duty:
The respondents alleged serious irregularities, citing under-declaration of value by the petitioner, leading to differential duty liabilities. The Consulate General of India highlighted suspected misdeclarations and undervaluation in the import process. The respondents detained the goods pending investigation based on these allegations.

Provisional clearance under Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner argued that the contract price between the foreign supplier and importer should be accepted unless proven otherwise. The petitioner had paid a significant sum as differential duty pending adjudication. The court noted previous orders granting provisional release of goods in similar cases and directed the respondents to release the goods upon payment of 30% of the differential duty and furnishing a personal bond.

Perishable nature of goods and release conditions:
Considering the perishable nature of the goods, the court ordered the release of the goods upon fulfillment of specified conditions. The petitioner was required to cooperate in the customs duty assessment process. The court emphasized that final orders could be passed post-adjudication, and appropriate actions could be taken if duty evasion was confirmed. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed, with the connected matter being closed.