2016 (9) TMI 1165 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of betel nuts seizure evidence produced as to the ownership of the goods whether rejection of provisional release of goods is proper and justified? Held that - Even if no owner is coming forward to claim the goods then also it is a settled proposition of law that the goods should be released to the person from whose custody the goods were seized. In the present case as per the case records there is no indication till date that seized betel nuts are of foreign origin. No evidence has been brought by the Revenue on record that betel nuts are absolutely prohibited or banned for importation into the country. Betel-nut unfit for human consumption test carried out by Food Analyst, Guwahati Held that - provisions of Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 are implemented by the State Govt. and not by the authorities under the Customs Act, 1962. Such objection can be raised only when the goods are being imported through regular Custom stations. The request of the Appellant for provisional release of seized betel nuts rejected by the Adjudicating authority was improper and legally not correct. It is ordered that seized betel nuts should be provisionally released to the Appellant after executing a bond for the full value of the goods with one solvent surety equal to 25% of the value of the seized goods. Appeal allowed decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Provisional release of seized goods.
2. Ownership of the seized goods.
3. Compliance with due process of law.
4. Legal provisions for provisional release.
5. Suitability of seized goods for human consumption.

Provisional Release of Seized Goods:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original regarding the seizure of betel nuts. The Appellant claimed ownership of the goods and requested provisional release. The High Court directed the Customs authority to consider the request promptly. The Appellant argued that the betel nuts were of Indian origin and not prohibited for import. The absence of other claimants and the drivers' statements supported the Appellant's ownership claim. The Tribunal noted no evidence of foreign origin or prohibition on importation. Referring to a circular, the Tribunal emphasized that disputed goods should not be held unless prohibited by law, allowing provisional release. The Appellant's request for provisional release was deemed appropriate, and the goods were to be released upon bond execution.

Ownership of the Seized Goods:
The Appellant claimed ownership of the seized betel nuts, supported by statements and lack of contrary claims. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of releasing goods to the custodian when ownership is unclear. The absence of evidence of foreign origin or prohibition strengthened the Appellant's ownership claim, leading to the decision for provisional release.

Compliance with Due Process of Law:
The Appellant's compliance with the due process was discussed, emphasizing the father's statements on behalf of the Appellant. The Tribunal noted that no challenges to the Appellant's ownership were raised, and the lack of cooperation during investigation was addressed. The compliance with legal procedures and lack of contradictory claims supported the Appellant's case for provisional release.

Legal Provisions for Provisional Release:
The Tribunal referred to a circular stating conditions for provisional release, emphasizing the need to prevent unnecessary delays and congestion. The Appellant's arguments aligned with the circular's provisions, supporting the decision for provisional release of the betel nuts. Legal precedents and case laws were cited to strengthen the Appellant's case for release.

Suitability of Seized Goods for Human Consumption:
The issue of the betel nuts' suitability for human consumption was raised based on a test conducted by a Food Analyst. The Tribunal clarified that such objections fall under the Food Safety & Standards Act, not the Customs Act. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal highlighted the release of perishable goods under similar circumstances. The decision for provisional release was reinforced by the High Court's ruling in a comparable case, emphasizing the need for immediate release under specified conditions.

In conclusion, the Appellant's appeal for provisional release of the seized betel nuts was allowed based on the ownership claim, compliance with legal procedures, lack of evidence of foreign origin, and the goods' suitability for release. The Tribunal's decision aligned with legal provisions, circular directives, and previous court rulings, ensuring justice and adherence to established laws and procedures.