2016 (6) TMI 753 - HC - Customs

Seizure of import of heavy melting steel scrap - goods were initially detained on the ground that hazardous items were being smuggled in the guise of heavy melting scrap - According to the learned counsel for the petitioner under Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, when no notice in respect of the seizure is given under Clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Held that - Since the provisions of the Section 110(2) is clear that in the absence of any notice under Section 124(a) within six months from the date of seizure, the petitioner is entitled to get release of the goods. - The 1st respondent is directed to release the goods covered by the bill of entry dated 06.08.2015 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - Decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Release of detained goods under Customs Act, 1962

Analysis:
The petitioner, a regular importer of heavy melting steel scrap, imported goods via bill of entry dated 06.08.2015, which were detained on suspicion of smuggling hazardous items. Despite 100% examination confirming compliance with the declaration, the goods were not released by the respondents, leading to the filing of a Writ Petition seeking release of the goods.

The petitioner argued that under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, if no notice is given regarding the seizure within six months, the goods must be returned to the person from whom they were seized. As the 1st respondent did not issue any notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, the petitioner was entitled to the release of the goods as per Section 110(2).

In response, the respondents claimed discrepancies in the cargo, stating the actual weight was significantly lower than declared, and unauthorized items were found. An investigation was initiated into the Inspection Agency and steamer agent's roles in the matter, with directions for expeditious proceedings.

The judgment held that as per Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, in the absence of a notice under Section 124(a) within six months of seizure, the goods must be released. Consequently, the impugned order of 18.01.2016 was set aside, and the 1st respondent was directed to release the goods within two weeks from the date of the order.

In conclusion, the Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, emphasizing the petitioner's entitlement to the release of goods under the Customs Act provisions.