2016 (5) TMI 391 - HC - Customs

Seeking direction for release of goods within a stipulated time - Import of Thiamexthoxam 141 G/L Lambda-Cyhalothrin 106 GL - Goods imported to Chennai Sea Port for re-export to third party client in Colombia - Clearance withheld for want of CIB Registration and for production of Certificate from CIB as per Section 3(e) of the Insecticide Act, 1968. Petitioner contended that it may be given liberty to give additional representation. Held that - without going into the merits of the case, the petitioner is being given the liberty to give one more representation to the 3rd respondent for the release of the goods, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the representations already made by the petitioner and also the representation to be submitted by the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three weeks thereafter after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Release of goods under Bill of Entry No.2242349 dated 13.8.2015 without reference to an impugned notification.
2. Interpretation of Central Insecticide Board (CIB) Registration requirements for imported goods.
3. Applicability of a judgment from the Kerala High Court on releasing goods.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release imported goods under a specific Bill of Entry without considering a notification from 1.1.2015. The goods were intended for re-export to a third-party client in Colombia. Despite providing necessary documents, the goods were not cleared due to a requirement related to Central Insecticide Board (CIB) Registration and a certificate under the Insecticide Act, 1968.

2. The petitioner argued that the CIB Registration requirement should not apply as the imported product was not for domestic or home consumption. They contended that the declaration in the Bill of Entry indicated the goods were not for home consumption, thus the CIB Registration should not be mandatory for these goods.

3. Reference was made to a judgment from the Kerala High Court regarding the release of goods, emphasizing that the respondents should release the goods to the petitioner based on this precedent. The respondents, however, argued against releasing the goods without considering the 1.1.2015 notification, stating it was contrary to the petitioner's case.

4. The court, without delving into the merits of the case, granted the petitioner liberty to submit another representation to the 3rd respondent for the release of goods within one week. The 3rd respondent was directed to consider all previous representations and the new submission, providing a decision within three weeks after a personal hearing for the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.