2017 (12) TMI 1557 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of seized goods - Section 110A of the Customs Act read with Customs (Provisionally Duty Assessment Regulations) 1963 - Held that - the respondent Department has not placed on record as to what is the allegation against the petitioner. From the copies of the bills of entry filed, it is found that the petitioner has imported metal balls, cotton buds, etc. and it is not known as to what is the exact reasons for the cargo being detained since first week of October 2017. There will be a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner s application for provisional release and pass appropriate orders - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Provisional release of imported goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act read with Customs (Provisionally Duty Assessment Regulations) 1963.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras, in this judgment delivered by Mr. T.S.Sivagnanam, J., addressed the issue of provisional release of goods imported by the petitioner. The court noted that despite adjourning the writ petition twice to allow the respondent Department to provide instructions, no written instructions were received by the learned Junior Panel Counsel. Consequently, the court decided not to keep the petition pending any longer. The relief sought by the petitioner was for the provisional release of goods imported via bills of entry dated 06.10.2017 under Section 110A of the Customs Act.

The court highlighted that while it would typically pass conditional orders for provisional release, citing the case of Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD, New Delhi, it refrained from doing so in this instance due to the lack of information regarding the allegations against the petitioner. The court observed that the goods imported included metal balls and cotton buds, but the exact reasons for the cargo's detention since early October 2017 were not disclosed by the respondent Department. Consequently, the court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for provisional release and issue appropriate orders within ten days of receiving the court's order. The respondent was also instructed to consider the petitioner's request for waiver of demurrages and detention charges, given that the consignment was detained at the department's behest.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition with the aforementioned direction, emphasizing that no costs were to be incurred.