2017 (9) TMI 687 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of goods - Section 110 A of the Customs Act - misdeclaration of cargo - watches-branded or unbranded - Held that - report has been sought for by DRI from Expert, and the report is awaited - there will be a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner s representation/application, dated 29.07.2017, for provisional release of the goods on receipt of the report from the Expert and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Prayer for provisional release of goods under Customs Act pending adjudication.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to provisionally release the goods covered by a specific Bill of Entry pending adjudication. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) filed a counter affidavit alleging that the petitioner misdeclared the cargo to evade customs duty. The DRI found discrepancies in the declaration, such as watches declared as 'unbranded' but bearing reputed brand names suspected to be counterfeit. Additionally, undeclared mobile phone batteries and USB cables were discovered during examination. The DRI also noted the unauthorized use of an import/export code belonging to another individual. The DRI requested an expert report to determine the branding of the watches. In light of these findings, the court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for provisional release of goods upon receipt of the expert report and to make a decision within 10 days in accordance with the law.

This judgment highlights the importance of accurate declaration of goods in customs documents and the consequences of misdeclaration. It underscores the authority of the DRI to investigate suspected customs violations and the legal recourse available to petitioners seeking provisional release of goods pending adjudication. The court's decision to await the expert report before making a final determination demonstrates a commitment to thorough examination of evidence in customs cases. The directive for timely consideration of the petitioner's application emphasizes the need for expeditious resolution of such matters within a specified timeframe. Overall, the judgment balances the interests of the petitioner with the regulatory obligations under the Customs Act, ensuring a fair and transparent process in customs enforcement.