9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1346 - HC - CustomsConfiscation of goods - Mis declaration of goods - Assessee prays for provisional release of goods - import of Multi Media Speakers for Computers of varying models - Held that - Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for provisional release of goods, documents and things seized pending adjudication. Any goods, documents or things seized under Section 110 of the Act, may, pending the order of the adjudicating officer, be released to the owner on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the Commissioner of Customs may require. The only reason for non-release of the goods is that the petitioners have misclassified and mis-declared the goods in question. The respondents, on investigation, found that the differential duty has to be paid even for the provisional release of the goods. The investigation has to be completed and thereafter, adjudication has to be done for assessment of the value - as the goods in question are not prohibitory items under the provisions of the Act and having regard to the foregoing reasons and discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, provisional release of the goods in question is ordered conditionally - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the proceedings in File Nos.S.Misc.144/2013-SIIB, S.Misc.108/2013-SIIB, S.Misc.128/2013-SIIB. 2. Direction to release imported goods covered under Bill of Entry Nos.2045972 dated 06.05.2013 and 2014153 dated 02.05.2013. 3. Legality of the Restraint Orders dated 07.05.2013. 4. Validity of the conditions imposed for provisional release of goods. 5. Allegations of mis-classification and mis-declaration of imported goods. 6. Authority of customs officials to restrain or detain goods post-assessment and clearance. 7. Comparison of valuation and classification by different customs commissionerates. 8. Legal provisions and precedents for provisional release of goods pending adjudication. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Quashing of the Proceedings The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings dated 26.08.2013 issued by the 3rd respondent. The court noted that the petitioner-entity, a trader in electronics and IT goods, had imported Multi Media Speakers for Computers and filed Bills of Entry for their clearance. The respondents, based on intelligence, alleged mis-classification and mis-declaration of goods, leading to the search and sealing of the petitioner's premises. The court examined the legality of the respondents' actions and the grounds for the petitioners' challenge, which included claims of arbitrariness, illegality, and unconstitutionality. Issue 2: Direction to Release Imported Goods The petitioner requested the release of goods covered under specific Bills of Entry, arguing that the goods were already assessed and cleared by customs. The respondents countered that the goods were undervalued and misclassified, justifying their detention. The court acknowledged the petitioner's plea for the release of goods, considering the potential losses and deterioration of the goods due to prolonged detention. Issue 3: Legality of the Restraint Orders The petitioner challenged the Restraint Orders dated 07.05.2013, which prevented them from dealing with the imported goods. The court examined the respondents' justification for the restraint, which was based on ongoing investigations into alleged mis-classification and undervaluation. The court considered whether the restraint was legally warranted and proportional to the alleged infractions. Issue 4: Validity of the Conditions Imposed for Provisional Release The court scrutinized the conditions imposed by the 3rd respondent for the provisional release of goods, which included a bond of Rs.55 Lakhs, a cash deposit of Rs.12 Lakhs, and a bank guarantee of Rs.6 Lakhs. The petitioner argued that these conditions were onerous and lacked justification. The court reviewed relevant legal provisions and precedents, including decisions by the Supreme Court and Division Bench of the High Court, which provided guidance on reasonable conditions for provisional release. Issue 5: Allegations of Mis-classification and Mis-declaration The respondents alleged that the petitioner misclassified and misdeclared the imported goods to evade customs duty. The court noted that the multifunctional audio systems imported by the petitioner had features like FM Radio and USB-based MP3 players, which were not declared. The court considered whether these allegations justified the detention and conditions imposed for provisional release. Issue 6: Authority of Customs Officials to Restrain or Detain Goods Post-Assessment and Clearance The petitioner argued that the respondents had no authority to restrain or detain goods that had already been assessed and cleared by customs. The court examined the legal framework under the Customs Act, 1962, and relevant rules, determining the extent of the customs officials' authority in such situations. Issue 7: Comparison of Valuation and Classification by Different Customs Commissionerates The petitioner contended that the same goods were cleared by other customs commissionerates at similar values, suggesting inconsistency in the respondents' actions. The court considered whether uniform valuation and classification practices across different commissionerates supported the petitioner's case. Issue 8: Legal Provisions and Precedents for Provisional Release of Goods Pending Adjudication The court reviewed Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for the provisional release of seized goods pending adjudication. The court also considered relevant regulations and precedents, including the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011, and various judicial decisions, to determine the appropriate conditions for provisional release in this case. Conclusion: The court ordered the provisional release of the goods subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioners shall deposit with the customs authorities the duty payable on the value declared by them. 2. The petitioners shall deposit with the customs authorities 50% of the differential duty, with the remaining 50% covered by a personal bond. 3. The investigation and adjudication process shall continue, with the petitioners required to cooperate. The writ petitions were disposed of with these directions, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
