2017 (8) TMI 631 - HC - Customs

Legality of the seizure - imported mobile phone battery cell - delay in passing an order of provisional release in respect of the consignment imported - Held that - this Court has been shown copy of the Adjudication Order dated 20th July, 2017 passed by the Joint Commissioner ICD-TKD (Import), New Delhi, inter alia, rejecting the declared assessable value of the goods imported under B/E dated 3rd May, 2017 while simultaneously re-assessing the value of these imported goods, which were seized by the Department - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of imported goods by the Department
2. Delay in passing an order of provisional release
3. Legality of the seizure
4. Adjudication proceedings and order

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, imported mobile phone battery components from Hong Kong. The controversy arose when the Department seized the consignment covered by a specific bill of entry (B/E) dated 3rd May 2017. The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition to quash the retrospective seizure and mandamus for provisional release of the goods.

2. The petitioner filed six B/Es, with provisional release orders issued for five consignments. However, the consignment under B/E No. 9550038 was seized. The petitioner raised concerns about the legality of the seizure and the delay in obtaining a provisional release order for this particular consignment.

3. Upon hearing the petition, the court was informed that adjudication proceedings were underway, and an order was expected within seven days. Subsequently, an Adjudication Order dated 20th July 2017 was passed by the Joint Commissioner, rejecting the declared assessable value of the seized goods and reassessing the customs duty liability. The order also included provisions for interest on delayed payment and penalties.

4. The court noted that the main prayers in the writ petition became moot due to the adjudication order issued by the Department. It was decided that the petitioner could raise all relevant grounds, including the legality of the seizure, in an appeal against the adjudication order. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to address their concerns through the appeal process.