9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1552 - HC - CustomsDetention of imported Consignments - wrongful goods dispatched from China erroneously and petitioner could not act immediately on account of intervening holidays - R22 refrigerant gas - restricted goods/improper import - petitioner seeks release of consignment or immediate re-export of the consignments as the goods were hazardous to the environment - HELD THAT - Admittedly, on 30.01.2015, the consignments have been detained by the customs authority pointing out as an improper import on 30.01.2015 invoking Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner company approached the authority concerned repeatedly opting to pay penalty for the purpose of release of goods with an undertaking to participate in the adjudication proceedings. Both the prayers were never met by the authorities and the matter is kept pending without passing any order. The learned senior panel counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that even according to Section 69 of the Customs Act, the time limit of six months granted for the authority to take a decision is extended up to six months and the six months time is not yet over and hence time may be granted for passing appropriate orders. The 1st respondent is directed to decide the issue, one way or the other, with regard to release of consignments or to enable the petitioner to re-export the consignments to the originating company or otherwise, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Improper import of refrigerant gases leading to detention by customs authority. 2. Delay in decision-making process by the authorities regarding the release or re-export of the consignments. 3. Legal recourse sought by the petitioner through a writ petition for mandamus. Analysis: Issue 1: Improper import of refrigerant gases leading to detention by customs authority The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in the business of refilling and selling refrigerant gases, faced an issue when the consignments of R410A refrigerant gases ordered from a supplier in China turned out to be under the restricted category of "R22" refrigerant gas. The customs authority detained the consignments on 30.01.2015, citing improper import under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite the petitioner's willingness to pay a penalty and participate in adjudication proceedings, the authorities did not release the goods or pass any orders, leaving the matter pending. Issue 2: Delay in decision-making process by the authorities regarding the release or re-export of the consignments The senior panel counsel for the 1st respondent argued that the time limit for the authority to make a decision under Section 69 of the Customs Act had not expired, requesting an extension for passing appropriate orders. However, considering the urgency of the situation due to the volatile and hazardous nature of the refrigerant gases, the court directed the 1st respondent to decide on the release of the consignments or allow the petitioner to re-export them within four weeks. The court emphasized affording due opportunity to the petitioner in this decision-making process. Issue 3: Legal recourse sought by the petitioner through a writ petition for mandamus The petitioner, facing potential harm due to the nature of the refrigerant gases and the lack of response from the authorities, approached the court seeking a mandamus to compel a decision on the release or re-export of the consignments. The court, after hearing both sides and examining the records, acknowledged the limited scope of the petitioner's prayer and directed the 1st respondent to resolve the issue promptly, ensuring that the petitioner's interests were safeguarded. The writ petition was disposed of with the directive for the 1st respondent to act decisively within the stipulated timeline. This judgment highlights the importance of timely decision-making by authorities in cases involving detained goods and the need for courts to intervene to ensure procedural fairness and protection of the rights of the parties involved.
|
