2017 (10) TMI 862 - HC - Customs

Release of seized goods - certificate evidencing local procurement of goods - Held that - It is not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner has received the copies of Annexure I II and III mentioned in the said letter - by way of further adinterim relief we direct that Shri Rahul Yadav the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or any appropriate Officer of the Customs to release articles/goods which are in godown but which are not part of the Annexure SM1. This exercise shall be completed by the first respondent within a period of one week from today.

Summary

Issues:
1. Release of locally procured goods
2. Scrutiny and release of seized goods
3. Examination of representations under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Order, 2013
4. Testing of seized material
5. Claim of privilege on investigation papers

Release of Locally Procured Goods:
The High Court directed the respondent to release locally procured goods upon the petitioner providing supporting documents. The respondent agreed to release the goods upon verification. The Court ordered immediate scrutiny and release of identified goods within a week.

Scrutiny and Release of Seized Goods:
The Court examined the original Memorandum of Seizure and directed the release of goods not listed in the seizure list. The respondent was instructed to release such goods within a week. The Court emphasized the absence of a supplementary list and ordered the release of additional goods found in the godown.

Examination of Representations under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Order, 2013:
The Court directed the second respondent to review the petitioner's representations regarding the need for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Order, 2013. A decision was to be made by a specified date, and the decision along with an affidavit was to be submitted to the Court.

Testing of Seized Material:
The respondent assured the completion of testing of seized material within two weeks. The Court decided to consider wider relief sought by the petitioner based on the second respondent's decision, keeping the petition open until a specified date.

Claim of Privilege on Investigation Papers:
The petitioner filed an additional affidavit referring to investigation papers in a sealed envelope. The respondent did not claim privilege as per the law, and the Court directed the petition to be heard for interim relief on a future date, with notice to the second respondent.

This detailed analysis summarizes the High Court's judgment, highlighting the key issues addressed and the specific directions given by the Court in each aspect of the case.