2015 (10) TMI 1911 - HC - Customs

Release of goods pleaded - 14,279 Kgs of cold rolled stainless steel sheets imported by extending Preferential Rate of Duty It is the case of Petitioner that goods are not prohibited and same were imported after complying with all origin requirements Revenue contends that petition is premature; same shall be dismissed and claim has not been negatived yet Held That - Petitioner shall approach the Revenue and put forth the contentions raised herein Revenue shall consider the same and pass appropriate order within one week Decided in favour of the Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Release of imported goods with preferential rate of duty.
2. Statutory obligations of customs authorities.
3. Premature filing of writ petition.

Analysis:
1. Release of imported goods with preferential rate of duty:
The petitioner imported cold rolled stainless steel sheets and claimed preferential rate of duty under the Preferential Trade Agreement Rules 2009. The petitioner provided necessary evidence of Malaysian origin, including a certificate of origin issued by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Malaysia. Despite complying with all requirements and previous acceptance of similar certificates, the respondents withheld the goods without valid reasons. The court noted that the certificate provided was in the proper format and contained all required information, leaving no doubt about the Malaysian origin of the goods. The court directed the release of the goods, emphasizing that the authorities should have followed the prescribed procedure for denial of preferential treatment if the certificate was not accepted.

2. Statutory obligations of customs authorities:
The petitioner argued that under Section 17 of the Customs Act, the customs authorities have a statutory obligation to examine, assess, and clear imported goods without undue delay. The petitioner contended that the authorities were withholding the goods without any valid basis, leading to unnecessary demurrage charges. The court acknowledged the petitioner's rights under the Customs Act and directed the authorities to release the goods promptly upon verification of the documents and compliance with the preferential rate of duty.

3. Premature filing of writ petition:
The standing counsel for the respondents argued that the writ petition was premature as the petitioner had not appeared before the authorities concerned before approaching the court. The counsel contended that the claim for preferential duty had not been negated by the authorities, making the writ petition premature. The court agreed with this argument and directed the petitioner to approach the authorities first, present all contentions raised in the writ petition, and seek a decision on the release of goods within one week from the court's order. The court disposed of the writ petition with these directions, highlighting that the petitioner should follow the proper procedure before seeking judicial intervention.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of releasing imported goods with preferential duty rates, emphasizing the statutory obligations of customs authorities and cautioning against premature filing of writ petitions without exhausting administrative remedies. The court's decision aimed to ensure proper procedure and timely resolution of the matter.