2015 (11) TMI 759 - HC - Customs

Detention of goods - Import of Articles of clay, metal and stones - Misdeclaration of goods - Revenue contends that the goods are antique - Held that - In the facts and circumstances of the disputed nature of the identity of the goods imported, I am of the view this may not be proper for this Court to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution by directing the official respondent to release the goods imported by the petitioner. However, considering the fact that huge demurrage may involve in the matter, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to complete the adjudication proceedings within two months - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of imported goods claimed as articles of clay, metal, and stones.
2. Dispute over the nature of the imported goods - whether antiques or not.
3. Alleged violation of regulations for handicrafts and import duty payment.
4. Application of the Antiquity and Treasures Act, 1972, and the UNESCO Convention.
5. Completeness of the bill filed by the importer.
6. Jurisdiction of the Court to direct release of detained goods under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. Direction for completion of adjudication proceedings within a specified timeframe.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner imported goods described as articles of clay, metal, and stones, which were detained by customs on suspicion of being antiques exceeding 100 years. The petitioner claimed no violation, stating the goods were declared as antiques and import duty was paid as per handicraft regulations. The official respondent disputed the nature of the goods and suspected them to be antiques. They referenced the Antiquity and Treasures Act, 1972, and the UNESCO Convention on Illicit Cultural Property Transfer ratified by India in 1977. The bill filed by the importer was found incomplete, lacking a proper declaration matching the articles' description.

2. The Court refrained from invoking Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the release of the goods due to the disputed nature of their identity. However, recognizing potential demurrage implications, a direction was issued for the completion of adjudication proceedings within two months from the judgment's receipt, provided the petitioner cooperated. This decision aimed to address the uncertainty surrounding the goods while ensuring a timely resolution to the matter.

3. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the directive for expedited adjudication proceedings, balancing the need for clarification on the imported goods' status with procedural efficiency. The judgment underscored the importance of adherence to regulations and thorough documentation in import transactions involving potentially sensitive or disputed items, emphasizing the significance of legal compliance and cooperation in resolving such matters within the established legal framework.