2014 (12) TMI 402 - HC - Customs

Detention of goods - Necessary clearance not obtained - Held that - When a given consignment comprises both offending and non-offending goods, placed separately, it is desirable to release the non offending part of the goods and detain the offending part of the goods for the purpose of initiating adjudication proceeding - The learned counsel while accepting the notice on behalf of the respondent, has submitted that at this stage of the matter, the merits of the case cannot be gone into. But, if sufficient time is granted to the authority, the respondent will consider the petitioner s representation dated 6.11.2014 - respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 6.11.2014 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to enclose a copy of the representation dated 6.11.2014 along with the copy of this order and submit the same by appearing in person before the respondent. - Writ disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ of mandamus for release of imported goods.
2. Interpretation of Legal Metrology (Packaging and Labeling) Regulations, 2011.
3. Delay in releasing goods despite prima facie satisfaction.
4. Customs Appraising Manual guidelines for consignments with offending and non-offending goods.
5. Request for release of balance consignment pending adjudication proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the release of goods imported under a specific Bill of Entry. The goods included decorative items like plastic flowers, gifts, and trees. The petitioner argued that there was no legal requirement for registration under Rule 27 of the Legal Metrology Regulations as the goods were not in pre-packaged form, hence no registration was necessary.

2. Despite the authority's prima facie satisfaction that registration was not required, the goods were not released, leading to the petitioner incurring demurrage and detention charges. The petitioner made written representations to the Joint Commissioner of Customs, emphasizing the lack of legal necessity for registration and requesting the release of the goods. The petitioner also suggested detaining any allegedly offending goods while clearing the rest.

3. The petitioner referred to the Customs Appraising Manual, highlighting the procedure for consignments with both offending and non-offending goods to release the non-offending part promptly. As the request for release was pending, the petitioner approached the Court for relief.

4. The respondent, while accepting the notice, stated that the case's merits could not be discussed at the current stage. However, they agreed to consider the petitioner's representation if given sufficient time. The Court directed the respondent to evaluate the petitioner's representation within three weeks and in accordance with the law, instructing the petitioner to appear in person with the relevant documents.

5. The Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction for the respondent to assess the petitioner's representation promptly. No costs were awarded in the judgment.