2014 (10) TMI 477 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Hazardous nature of goods - Held that - Bills of entry were filed on 16.12.2013 and it is the specific case that these goods were imported from the group at France. Till date, the Department has not taken any action on the goods and for the first time, in the instructions given to the learned Standing Counsel, the Department takes a stand that the petitioner gave a letter in January 2014, agreeing to obtain appropriate No Objection Certificate. for the past ten months, the Department has not taken any action, if according to the Department, the goods cannot be released for certain reasons, then, the same should be put to the petitioner in the appropriate Form in accordance with law. Without doing so, there is no justification for the respondents to retain the goods endlessly in their custody. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to make an observation as regards the stand taken by the respondent, as regards the nature of the Cargo - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking writ of mandamus to release goods covered by bills of entry.
2. Classification of imported goods as hazardous waste under Hazardous Waste Rules.
3. Delay in action by the Department on the goods.
4. Lack of justification for retaining goods by the respondents.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, filed bills of entry to clear imported products from a group concern in France. The Department refused clearance, citing the goods as hazardous waste under Hazardous Waste Rules. Despite the petitioner's representations, no permission was granted, leading to the petition for a writ of mandamus.

2. The Department, in written instructions, mentioned the petitioner's commitment to obtaining clearance certificates. However, the Court noted the lack of action by the Department on the goods since their filing in December 2013. The Department's stance on the goods' nature and the petitioner's compliance with obtaining certificates was highlighted.

3. The Court emphasized the Department's ten-month inaction on the goods and the necessity for proper procedures under the Customs Act. It pointed out the lack of justification for the prolonged retention of the goods without informing the petitioner appropriately. The Court refrained from making observations on the cargo's nature at that stage.

4. Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of by directing the second respondent to take necessary action under the Customs Act within two weeks to enable the petitioner to proceed further. The Court did not award costs in this matter. The judgment aimed to address the delay in action by the Department and ensure compliance with legal procedures for the release of goods.