2015 (4) TMI 954 - HC - Customs

Seizure of goods - promissory estoppel - the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that the respondent was entitled to verify the authenticity of the documents submitted by the appellant and on the basis of which the seizure / detention order was vacated; that thus the endeavour of the respondent to verify the documents provided by the appellant cannot be interdicted and rejecting the contention that the respondent is estopped from verifying the documents. Held that - appellant instead of addressing the questions culled out by us in the aforesaid order again started arguing the plea of estoppel - The appellant cannot pick a line here and a line there, out of context and impute a motive, which a reading of the whole document does not disclose. A reading of the whole of the aforesaid notice dated 21st November, 2014 shows that the purport thereof is to seek information from the appellant qua the doubts entertained by the Customs Authorities and for eliciting the response, the doubts entertained have necessarily to be stated. - Though the senior counsel for the appellant at the beginning of the hearing had also handed over written submissions and insisted on reading the same but in view of having confined the appeal to the aforesaid contention only, need is not felt to refer thereto. We may also record that the counsel for the respondent in his counter affidavit supported by copies of the judgments handed over in the Court today has sought to address the issue highlighted by us in our order dated 2nd February, 2015 supra but again in view of the appeal having been confined as aforesaid, need is not felt to refer thereto also. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugning the order of dismissal of a writ petition filed by the appellant.
2. Invocation of the principle of waiver and promissory estoppel.
3. Interpretation of provisions under the Customs Act regarding seizure, detention, and verification of goods.
4. Argument on the permissibility of findings in a notice issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the dismissal of a writ petition, arguing that the respondent, under the Customs Act, had waived further proceedings after vacating the order of seizure/detention of goods. The High Court noted the appellant's reliance on promissory estoppel but found it misconceived. The Court highlighted the need to consider the provisions of the Customs Act to determine if any further action was permissible post the vacation of the seizure order.

2. The Court delved into the Customs Act's Section 110(2), which mandates returning seized goods if no notice is given within six months. The respondent argued that while confiscation might not be possible, imposing a penalty could still be an option even without a notice within the specified timeframe. However, the Court expressed doubts and emphasized that summoning under Section 108 should align with permissible actions, not matters where the right to pursue has ceased.

3. The appellant contended that the notice under Section 108 contained impermissible findings against them. The Court scrutinized the notice and concluded that the appellant's interpretation was flawed. The Court emphasized the holistic reading of the notice, stating that seeking information and addressing doubts were the primary purposes, not making adverse findings. Despite the respondent's counter affidavit addressing highlighted issues, the Court focused on the appellant's confined argument and dismissed the appeal without imposing costs.

This judgment underscores the importance of understanding statutory provisions, the permissible actions post-seizure under the Customs Act, and the interpretation of notices issued under specific sections. The Court's meticulous analysis ensures clarity on the legal principles involved and upholds the integrity of procedural requirements within the customs framework.