2008 (9) TMI 91 - HC - Customs

Petition seeks quashing of seizure Memo (Panchnamas) & provisional release letter - Further prayer is to direct release of goods lying seized at its godowns and at Port and also for a direction to return sum of Rs. 2 crores deposited under coercion and threat held that goods are liable to be released - prima facie, goods are not liable to confiscation - held that after adjusting the differential duty mentioned in the letter, the rest of the of the money deposited by the petitioner be refunded

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of Seizure Memos and Provisional Release Letter.
2. Release of Seized Goods.
3. Refund of Rs. 2 Crores Deposited Under Coercion.
4. Jurisdiction of the Court.
5. Validity of Conditions Imposed for Provisional Release of Goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Seizure Memos and Provisional Release Letter:
The petitioner sought the quashing of seizure memos dated 10-7-2008, 11-7-2008, 15-7-2008, and 22-7-2008, and the provisional release letter dated 25-7-2008. The petitioner argued that the seizure was unjustified as the goods were valued based on contemporaneous imports and the department had not issued any show cause notice or confirmed any demand. The court noted that the seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act requires a reasonable belief that the goods are liable to confiscation. However, in this case, no such belief was recorded before the seizure, making the action arbitrary.

2. Release of Seized Goods:
The petitioner contended that the goods were lying in the open and could be damaged, and that the conditions for provisional release were harsh. The court observed that the conditions imposed for the provisional release of goods, such as the execution of a bank guarantee to the extent of 10% of the seizure value and an indemnity bond equivalent to the seizure value, were not justified. The court held that the department's concern should be limited to securing the differential duty, which was much lesser than the amount already deposited by the petitioner.

3. Refund of Rs. 2 Crores Deposited Under Coercion:
The petitioner claimed that the Rs. 2 crores were deposited under coercion and threat. The respondents argued that the amount was paid voluntarily towards partial payment of duty evaded. The court noted that a voluntary deposit cannot operate as an estoppel if the amount is not due. The court directed that after adjusting the differential duty, the rest of the money deposited by the petitioner should be refunded.

4. Jurisdiction of the Court:
The respondents argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the main working of the petitioner was in Delhi, and only part of the goods was seized at Panipat. The court rejected this objection, stating that if the action of the respondents affects the rights of the petitioner, such rights can be enforced by the court. The court emphasized that it has jurisdiction against any illegal action at any stage, especially when the issue of release of goods is of urgent nature.

5. Validity of Conditions Imposed for Provisional Release of Goods:
The court examined whether the conditions imposed by the department for the provisional release of goods were legal. The court referred to various judgments and concluded that the conditions requiring an indemnity bond and a bank guarantee were harsh and not justified. The court held that the department's concern should be limited to securing the differential duty, and there was no prima facie case for confiscation of goods.

Conclusion:
The court quashed conditions Nos. 2 and 3 imposed in the provisional release letter dated 25-7-2008 and directed the release of goods on the other conditions mentioned in the letter. The court also directed that after adjusting the differential duty, the rest of the money deposited by the petitioner should be refunded. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →