2015 (10) TMI 1535 - HC - Customs

Appeal to remove consignments from the Premises Petitioner functions as Container Freight Station (CFS) under Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962 Petitioner contends that license issued to them for the operation of CFS cancelled and as such consignments seized be removed from their premises - Held That - There is no justifiable reason for retaining goods in the premises of the Petitioner as the same does not have a license of CFS Respondents are directed either to auction the confiscated goods or otherwise shift them from the place of the Petitioner Decided in favour of the Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks removal of 23 consignments from their premises post cancellation of CFS license.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Container Freight Station (CFS) operator, had approval to function as a CFS for import and export cargo. Due to operational difficulties, they requested cancellation of the license. Despite stopping operations and liquidating cargo, 23 consignments seized by customs authorities remained on the premises. The Ministry of Commerce canceled the initial approval, and the petitioner no longer holds CFS status or a bonded warehouse license. The petitioner's counsel argued that as per the Customs Act, 1962, the goods cannot continue to remain on the premises. Multiple representations to remove the goods were made to the respondents since 2012, but no action was taken. Some consignments had been confiscated years ago, making them Central Government property, requiring the confiscating officer to take possession. The counsel contended that retention of the 23 consignments on the premises was unlawful, seeking a directive for their immediate removal.

The court noted the petitioner's grievances regarding the unnecessary retention of confiscated goods on their premises post-cancellation of CFS status. Despite repeated representations, the authorities failed to take action, prompting the filing of the writ petition. The court observed that the authorities neither auctioned the confiscated goods nor ensured their safe custody. Consequently, the court directed the respondents to consider and decide on the petitioner's representation dated 20.1.2015 promptly. The authorities were instructed to either auction the confiscated goods or relocate them from the petitioner's premises within twelve weeks from the date of the court order. The writ petition was disposed of with the aforementioned directive, without imposing any costs.