2018 (9) TMI 1772 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of goods and/or permitting the petitioners to re-export the goods - Misdeclaration of imported goods - misdeclaration of the goods as Base Oil SN 50 instead of its correct description as High Speed Diesel Oil so classified - Held that - The concerned department viz. competent authority shall consider representation that may be made by the petitioner with regard to provisional release of goods/material seized and/or alternatively to permit them to re-export such goods - Summons or notices so envisaged under Section 28 and Section 28 (4) read with Section 124 of the Act or any other notice/summons that may be issued by the department for which the petitioner shall be given reasonable time viz. including that of opportunity of hearing before passing the order in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Draft amendment allowed.
2. Challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Petitioner's prayers for various directions.
4. Allegations of misdeclaration of imported goods.
5. Contention regarding issuance of notices under Customs Act.
6. Consideration of representation for provisional release or re-export of goods.
7. Directions issued by the court.

Draft Amendment Allowed:
The court allowed the draft amendment in the context of a challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought various directions, including the furnishing of samples, re-testing, and provisional release of the impugned consignment. The petitioner also requested to restrict the authorities from taking coercive steps pending the disposal of the writ petition.

Allegations of Misdeclaration:
The petitioner was accused of misdeclaring imported goods as 'Base Oil SN 50' instead of 'High Speed Diesel Oil.' The department contended that the import of High Speed Diesel is restricted under the Customs Tariff of India. The matter involved classification under the Customs Tariff and the correct description of goods imported.

Contention Regarding Notices:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the petition was filed before the issuance of notices under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act. The department had sent the seized goods for testing, and the reports were available. The respondents opposed any restriction on taking lawful actions under the Act based on the available reports.

Consideration of Representation:
The court directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner's representation for provisional release or re-export of the seized goods. Both parties agreed that the petitioner would respond to any summons or clarifications sought by the department. The adjudication proceedings were expected to be completed within two months.

Court's Directions:
The court disposed of the petition with specific directions. The competent authority was instructed to consider the petitioner's representation promptly. The petitioner was granted reasonable time and an opportunity for a hearing before any order was passed. The petitioner was required to make the representation within one week, and the authority was to provide a reasoned order in response.

This judgment addressed the issues of amendment, misdeclaration, issuance of notices, representation consideration, and specific directions to be followed by the competent authority, ensuring a fair process and opportunity for the petitioner to present their case effectively.