2014 (9) TMI 859 - HC - Customs

Seizure of goods - Provisional release of goods - Held that - In the absence of any counter assertion on behalf of the respondents as to the fate of the aforesaid application, this Court presumes that the request, made by the petitioner to the concerned authority for provisional release has not reached to its logical end. This Court feels that justice would be sub-served if the Commissioner of Customs (Port) is reminded of his statutory duties to dispose of the application taken out for provisional release of the seized goods - Commissioner of Customs (Port) is directed to take a decision on the application taken out by the petitioner seeking the provisional release of the seized goods within two weeks from the date of communication of this order in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Provisional release of seized goods under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition where the petitioner sought provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner highlighted that the goods were perishable and would lose marketable value if not released. Despite repeated applications and no response from the Department, the Court directed the matter to be listed again. The Court noted the lack of representation by the respondents and the pending application for provisional release, emphasizing the need for the Commissioner of Customs (Port) to address the matter promptly. The Court observed that justice required the Commissioner to fulfill his statutory duties and decide on the application within two weeks, providing a personal hearing to the petitioner or their representative and recording reasons for the decision, including the applicability of relevant provisions cited in the petitioner's letter.

The judgment underscores the importance of timely decision-making in cases involving the provisional release of seized goods, particularly when perishable items are concerned. It highlights the Court's role in ensuring that statutory duties are fulfilled by the concerned authorities, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and adherence to the law. By directing the Commissioner of Customs (Port) to take a decision within a specified timeframe and provide a personal hearing to the petitioner, the Court aims to uphold principles of natural justice and procedural regularity in customs matters. The judgment serves as a reminder to administrative bodies to act promptly and transparently in handling applications related to the release of seized goods, safeguarding the rights and interests of the concerned parties while maintaining the integrity of the legal process.

Overall, the judgment exemplifies the Court's intervention to address delays and inaction by administrative authorities, ensuring that justice is not denied to individuals seeking relief under the Customs Act. It underscores the significance of procedural fairness, timely decision-making, and adherence to statutory obligations in matters involving the release of seized goods, reflecting the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of parties involved in customs-related disputes.