2017 (12) TMI 1868 - HC - Customs

Seizure of goods - betel nuts that transported from West Bengal to New Delhi - imported goods or not - HELD THAT - Petitioner's defence appears to be that the goods are not imported goods, but such as have been produced inside the country, therefore, the custom authority has no jurisdiction to detain or seize the same. While the aforesaid issue may be properly gone into in adjudication proceedings which are yet to be undertaken, at this stage, the goods being perishable in nature may not be detained by the custom authority any further. Accordingly, goods in question may be released in favour of the petitioner, subject to its furnishing security in the shape of other than cash or bank guarantee for the full value of the goods as estimated by the custom authority. The instant writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the respective parties to raise all issues for adjudication in proper proceedings.

Summary

Issues:
Seizure of goods during transportation; Jurisdiction of custom authority over goods produced within the country; Release of perishable goods pending adjudication; Requirement of security for release of goods.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging the seizure order of betel nuts being transported from West Bengal to New Delhi. The petitioner argued that the goods were produced within the country and not imported, questioning the jurisdiction of the custom authority to detain or seize them. The court acknowledged that this issue requires proper adjudication but noted the perishable nature of the goods. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the goods in favor of the petitioner, subject to the provision of security other than cash or bank guarantee for the full value of the goods as estimated by the custom authority. The petitioner was given two weeks to furnish this security to the satisfaction of the custom authority, following which the vehicle and goods would be released.

The judgment emphasizes the need to balance the interests of the parties involved, ensuring that the perishable goods are not unduly detained while also safeguarding the interests of the custom authority pending further adjudication. By allowing the release of the goods upon the provision of suitable security, the court addressed the immediate concern of the petitioner without prejudicing the jurisdictional issue to be resolved in subsequent proceedings. The order highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the preservation of goods' value during legal disputes, maintaining a practical approach to resolving the matter at hand.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the directive for the release of the goods upon furnishing security, while reserving the right for both parties to raise all relevant issues for adjudication in appropriate proceedings. This judgment exemplifies the court's consideration of the circumstances surrounding the seizure of goods, the jurisdictional question raised by the petitioner, and the need to balance the interests of the parties involved in a timely and equitable manner.