2015 (9) TMI 871 - HC - Customs

Writ jurisdiction where alternate remedy is available - Valuation of goods - Provisional release of goods - Execution of bond for re-determined value of the imported goods - Held that - On a bare perusal of Section 128 of Customs Act it is manifestly clear that an appeal lies in respect of any decision or order passed under the Customs Act . In my view the impugned order falls within the description of order or decision with respect to provisional clearance. Further, the impugned order dated 06.04.2015 has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs Preventive (Alpha Group) which is lower in rank than a Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs. No exceptional or extraordinary circumstances have also been brought on record before this Court to permit it to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in terms of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 the appeal against the impugned order dated 06.04.2015 shall lie to the Commissioner of Appeals within sixty days from the date of its communication to him. - petitioner has approached this Court under the mistaken view that remedy of appeal is not available under the Customs Act, 1962, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may prefer an appeal before the concerned appropriate authority within four weeks - Decided against appellant.

Issues:
1. Provisional release of goods subject to bond execution and deposit.
2. Allegations of mis-declaration and excess goods in the consignment.
3. Contention on valuation of goods and alleged mala-fide conduct by customs officials.
4. Concerns about deterioration of goods if not released.
5. Dispute over cooperation in investigation and IPR violation allegations.
6. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 for appeal jurisdiction.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order for provisional release of goods subject to bond execution and deposit. The consignment was seized due to allegations of mis-declaration and excess goods. The petitioner sought release through multiple communications, contesting the re-determined value set by the customs department.

2. The petitioner argued that the valuation of goods at a significantly higher amount was unjustified and reflected mala-fide intentions of the officials. They claimed the conditions imposed for release were unreasonable and not in line with Customs Act Valuation Rules. Concerns were raised about the alleged harassment and ulterior motives behind the department's actions.

3. The respondent contended that the goods were seized for mis-declaration and not IPR violation initially. The petitioner's lack of cooperation in providing records hindered the valuation process. The respondent highlighted the examination findings and the excess quantity of auto parts discovered. The respondent emphasized the importance of following procedures in determining provisional value and duty.

4. The petitioner expressed concerns about the goods deteriorating in quality if not released promptly. However, the respondent argued that the goods were not perishable but luxury car parts, emphasizing the need for proper investigation and valuation procedures.

5. The respondent accused the petitioner of non-cooperation in the investigation and IPR violation. The involvement of Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. in inspecting the parts revealed concerns about counterfeit items, impacting the Intellectual Property Rights. The respondent clarified that the seizure was initially based on mis-declaration issues, with IPR violations becoming relevant later.

6. The judgment analyzed the appeal jurisdiction under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. It concluded that the order in question fell within the scope of appealable decisions. The court directed the petitioner to pursue the appeal process instead of the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of the appeal remedy and the need to follow the statutory provisions for seeking redressal.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, advising the petitioner to opt for the appeal route within the specified timeline for resolution of the dispute regarding the provisional release of goods and related valuation issues.

← Previous Next →