2018 (2) TMI 1831 - HC - Customs

Seizure of goods - Delay in passing of the order under Section 110A of the Customs Act 1962 - case of petitioner is that the order is being deliberately delayed and prolonged to harass the petitioner - Held that - Counsel for the respondent states that the order under Section 110A of the Customs Act 1962 would be passed within a period of ten days. The said order would be passed and also communicated to the petitioner by speed post within ten days - Re-list on 12th April 2018.

Summary

Issues: Delay in passing order under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 causing deprivation of seized goods.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the issue of delay in passing the order under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, which led to the petitioner being deprived of the seized goods. The Court noted that despite the petitioner filing an application under Section 110A, the order had not been passed, causing concern over the delay. The petitioner alleged that the delay was intentional to harass them. The respondent's counsel assured the Court that the order would be passed within ten days and communicated to the petitioner via speed post. The Court allowed the petitioner to file an application in case of any further delay.

In response to the petitioner's concerns, the Court emphasized the importance of timely processing of orders under Section 110A to prevent undue deprivation of goods. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the delay and highlighted the petitioner's right to prompt action on their application. The respondent's counsel assured the Court that the order would be issued promptly within the specified timeframe to address the petitioner's grievances.

The Court scheduled a re-listing of the case for 12th April, 2018, indicating its intention to monitor the timely issuance of the order. The Court's decision to re-list the case signified its commitment to ensuring that the order under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 would be passed within the stipulated timeframe. Additionally, the Court directed the order to be communicated to the petitioner by speed post to facilitate prompt receipt and further legal action if necessary.

Overall, the judgment highlighted the significance of timely administrative actions in customs matters to safeguard the rights of individuals involved. By setting a deadline for the issuance of the order and allowing the petitioner recourse in case of further delays, the Court aimed to address the concerns raised regarding the prolonged deprivation of seized goods due to administrative delays.