2022 (4) TMI 1412 - HC - Customs

Seeking re-export of confiscated goods - import of goods called Areca Nuts from a foreign soil - prohibited goods or not - HELD THAT - As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the same goods since was imported when the petitioner in the said case in M/s.Unik Traders was placed in the same position, the issue had been decided by the decision of the learned Judge in the said case of M/S. UNIK TRADERS VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER 2021 (12) TMI 198 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge had given the said direction, where a time bound direction was given to the respondent/Customs to complete the procedure pending with the confiscation proceedings and even if the goods are to be confiscated by declaring it as prohibited goods, even then by using the discretion in the word occur in Section 125 of the Customs Act,1962, the respondent Customs can give an option to the petitioner/importer to re-export the imported goods. The said proposition held in the case of M/s.Unik Traders can very well be applied in the present facts of the case. Therefore, the said benefit can be extended to the present petitioner also. The writ petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of Areca Nuts intercepted and seized by Customs.
2. Petitioner seeks mandamus for re-export of goods.
3. Discretion of Customs authority under Section 125 of Customs Act.
4. Comparison with a previous case involving similar circumstances.
5. Granting permission for re-export of prohibited goods.

Issue 1: Import of Areca Nuts intercepted and seized by Customs
The petitioner, an importer, imported Areca Nuts which were intercepted and seized by Customs on grounds of being prohibited goods. The Customs stated that an investigation followed by adjudication was necessary to determine whether the goods should be confiscated.

Issue 2: Petitioner seeks mandamus for re-export of goods
The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking a mandamus from the Court to allow re-export of the goods. The petitioner relied on a previous case involving similar circumstances where another importer was permitted to re-export goods under certain conditions.

Issue 3: Discretion of Customs authority under Section 125 of Customs Act
The Senior Panel Counsel for Customs argued that under Section 125 of the Customs Act, the authority has the discretion to decide on re-export or redemption of prohibited goods. Such discretion is not limited to favoring importers, especially in the case of prohibited goods.

Issue 4: Comparison with a previous case involving similar circumstances
The petitioner's counsel highlighted a previous case where a similar situation was addressed, and the Court directed Customs to complete the confiscation process and consider re-export even if the goods were to be confiscated as prohibited items. This comparison was crucial in arguing for similar treatment for the current petitioner.

Issue 5: Granting permission for re-export of prohibited goods
The Court, after considering submissions from both parties and examining relevant records, concluded that the benefit extended in the previous case could be applied to the current petitioner. The Court directed Customs to classify the goods, complete necessary procedures, and provide the petitioner with an option to re-export the goods if found to be prohibited, subject to applicable fees and penalties under the Customs Act.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petitions by granting the petitioner the opportunity to re-export the goods if they were determined to be prohibited, following a specific timeline for completion of procedures and issuance of re-export orders.