2014 (1) TMI 14 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Benefit of confiscated goods denied - Undue delay in release of goods - Held that - extension of the detention has been made till 10.01.2014, having regard to the fact that there can be no further extension after the said date and keeping in mind that matter requires adjudication on various aspects which have been stated in the order in original dated 09.07.2013, it would be in the interest of both the parties that the adjudication on these aspects shall be concluded at the earliest point of time, so that if really there is no irregularity in the import, the goods could be released to the petitioner herein at an earliest point of time - respondent is directed to initiate and conclude the adjudication within an expeditious period of time which means that the issue of notice to the petitioner shall be by 15.11.2013 and the adjudication on the various aspects stated in the impugned order or any other aspect which would arise shall be concluded by 27.12.2013. It is needless to observe that having regard to the aforesaid time frame, the petitioner would co-operate in the proceedings and shall not take time unnecessarily and prolong the proceedings. At the same time, having regard to the fact that the goods have been detained since December 2012, if the Department is convinced of the fact that if there is indeed no irregularity in the import, the detained goods shall be released to the petitioner at an earliest point of time - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Provisional release conditions for imported goods
2. Mis-declaration of imported goods
3. Delay in investigation and adjudication
4. Harsh and burdensome conditions of provisional release order

Issue 1: Provisional release conditions for imported goods

The petitioner challenged the communication dated 25.03.2013 regarding the provisional release conditions for goods imported through Bill of Entry No.8746111 dated 12.12.2012. The petitioner argued that the prescribed conditions were harsh and not in accordance with the law. The goods imported were initially declared as "Amezcua Chi Pendant" but were found to be "Glass Pendant" made in Germany, not artificial jewelry as stated. The Department discovered that the goods were misclassified and undervalued, leading to a higher rate of customs duty being applicable. The Department seized the goods on 11.01.2013 due to misdeclaration issues.

Issue 2: Mis-declaration of imported goods

The second respondent found grounds for misdeclaration by the importer related to the description, country of origin, classification, relationship with the supplier, and true transaction value. The goods were seized, and the petitioner sought their release. The petitioner's main grievance was the delay in concluding the investigation and adjudication related to the import. The petitioner contended that the conditions attached to the provisional release order were burdensome and not in accordance with the law. The order extending the detention of goods until 10.01.2014 was challenged in a separate writ petition.

Issue 3: Delay in investigation and adjudication

The petitioner raised concerns about the undue delay in resolving the issues surrounding the import, leading to a prolonged detention of the goods. The court emphasized the need for expeditious adjudication to determine if there was any irregularity in the import. The court directed the second respondent to initiate and conclude the adjudication process promptly. A specific timeline was set for issuing notices to the petitioner and concluding the adjudication by 27.12.2013, stressing the importance of cooperation from both parties to expedite the proceedings.

Issue 4: Harsh and burdensome conditions of provisional release order

The court acknowledged the petitioner's contention regarding the harsh and burdensome conditions of the provisional release order. While refraining from delving into the merits of the impugned order, the court directed the second respondent to expedite the adjudication process. The court emphasized the need for a swift resolution, ensuring that if no irregularity was found in the import, the goods should be released promptly to the petitioner. The court kept all contentions open and disposed of the writ petitions with the specified timeline for concluding the proceedings.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of provisional release conditions, mis-declaration of goods, delays in investigation and adjudication, and the directive to expedite the process while ensuring fairness and compliance with the law.