2014 (7) TMI 672 - HC - Customs

Release of consignment - import of television sets - inaction on the part of the respondents / revenue - respondents have not permitted clearance of the goods for want of obtaining of document from Bureau of Indian Standards - Held that - appellant is ready and willing to appear before the Authorized Officer as the consignment is held up for more than 3 months. - directions issued that, the petitioner shall appear before the Authorized Officer by Friday i.e. 4th July, 2014. The concerned Authorized Officer shall complete the exercise in terms of para2 of the affidavit reproduced above by 11th July, 2014. - exercise as above shall be completed by 11th July, 2014.

Summary

Issues involved:
Complaint of inaction by respondents in import under Open General License, refusal of goods clearance due to missing document from Bureau of Indian Standards, premature petition response by Customs department, petitioner's willingness to appear before Authorized Officer for resolution.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an importer, approached the High Court complaining about the inaction of the respondents regarding the clearance of goods under an Open General License. The petitioner, a business entity importing Samsung products, claimed to have followed all necessary procedures and obtained proper authorizations, permits, and licenses for the import of 265 pieces of Samsung Brand LED TV. However, the goods were not cleared by the respondents due to a requirement related to obtaining a document from the Bureau of Indian Standards. The petitioner sought the release of the consignment based on compliance with all regulations.

In response to the Writ Petition, an affidavit by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs stated that the petition was premature as the goods had not been examined or assessed, and no duty had been paid or demanded. The Customs department had requested specific information, including a valid BIS Certificate, from the petitioner to decide on the matter promptly. The department highlighted the use of provisions under the Customs Act, 1962, to avoid detention and demurrage charges. The petitioner was asked to appear before the Authorized Officer to facilitate the resolution process.

The High Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Authorized Officer by a specified date and instructed the Authorized Officer to complete the necessary steps outlined in the affidavit by a deadline. The court clarified that its order did not mandate further proceedings, including the issuance of a show cause notice, leaving the matter to the Authorized Officer's discretion within the bounds of the law. The court emphasized that all contentions and defenses raised by the petitioner could be presented before the appropriate forum at the right stage. The court accepted the undertakings given by the respondents' representative and set a strict deadline for the resolution process, with no further extensions granted. The Writ Petition was disposed of without costs, with instructions for all concerned parties to act on the court's order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised by the petitioner, the response from the Customs department, the court's directives for resolution, and the final disposition of the Writ Petition, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions involved.