2016 (12) TMI 1369 - HC - Customs

Detention of goods due to dispute in country of origin - provisional release - denied on the ground that an order of provisional release was passed by the respondents on 16.12.2015, but the petitioner did not utilize the opportunity and complied with the conditions therein - Held that - this Court suggested that if the interest of revenue is safeguarded, the prayer for provisional release can be considered by them. The gap between admitted duty and penal duty is wide. The petitioner is not in a position to make any reasonable offer to safeguard the interest of revenue. Therefore, the only option available is to direct the respondents to finally adjudicate the matter. When this suggestion was put to the petitioner, the petitioner has agreed to cooperate for adjudication process, provided strict time lines are followed - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction sought for release of imported goods.
2. Dispute over country of origin of detained goods.
3. Consideration of provisional release and final adjudication process.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction for the release of imported goods imported through specific Bill of Entry Nos. The Department resisted the prayer citing the petitioner's failure to comply with a previous order of provisional release. The goods in question were steel measuring tapes, with the petitioner claiming them to be of Vietnamese origin, while the Department contended they were of Chinese origin, necessitating anti-dumping duty payment exceeding ?56 Lakhs.

2. After hearing both parties, the Court suggested that if the revenue's interest is safeguarded, provisional release could be considered. Due to the substantial gap between admitted duty and penal duty, the petitioner couldn't offer a reasonable safeguard. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner by a specified date, allowing time for reply submission and fixing a personal hearing within ten days of reply receipt. The petitioner agreed to cooperate for adjudication with strict timelines.

3. The Court issued specific directions for the adjudication process, including timelines for issuing notices, reply submission, personal hearing, and passing final orders. Emphasizing cooperation from both parties, the Court clarified that failure to cooperate would preclude complaints about delays. The writ petition was disposed of with the above directions, without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.