2018 (1) TMI 954 - HC - Customs

Release of detained goods - Betel Nuts - Held that - Non furnishing of the bonds in proper form cannot be a reason for seeking any clarification in the order of the High Court. We have gone through the order of the High Court dated 30.5.2017 not once but several times and found that it is crystal clear which could be understood even by a layman. Therefore, seeking a clarification of the said order by an Officer of the rank of the Assistant Commissioner is beyond our comprehension - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Detention and seizure of betel nuts by Commercial Tax Authorities, refusal to release goods by Custom Department, lack of order for seizure/confiscation by Custom Authority, clarification of High Court order by Custom Department, validity of bonds furnished by petitioner.

Analysis:
The case involves a consignment of betel nuts detained/seized by the Commercial Tax Authorities, leading to a legal battle initiated by the transporter, Vijay Logistic, in the High Court through Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.88 of 2017. An interim mandamus was issued by the High Court directing the release of the goods upon furnishing an indemnity bond. Despite compliance with the court order by furnishing necessary security, the Commercial Tax Department, acting on a letter from the Custom Department, refused to release the goods citing Customs Act provisions.

The High Court noted that there was no order of seizure or confiscation by the Custom Authority for the betel nuts and that they were not notified goods under the Customs Act. Consequently, the Custom Department was directed to release the goods immediately upon the petitioner furnishing adequate security equivalent to the value of the goods as per the tax invoice. However, the goods remained unreleased till the date of the judgment.

The State's Special Counsel confirmed that the Commercial Tax Department had no objections to releasing the goods and had only detained them based on Custom Department's directions. Despite this, no order from the Custom Department for seizure/confiscation was produced. The respondent's counsel filed an application seeking clarification of the High Court's order, alleging issues with the bonds furnished by the petitioner.

The High Court, after reviewing its order multiple times, found it clear and understandable. It dismissed the need for clarification based on the alleged inadequacy of the bonds. The Assistant Commissioner from the Custom Department was summoned to explain any perceived ambiguity in the High Court's order and the clarification sought by the department. The matter was adjourned for the Assistant Commissioner's appearance to provide necessary explanations.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the conflicting actions of the Commercial Tax and Custom Departments regarding the detention and release of the betel nuts, emphasizing the necessity of legal orders for seizure/confiscation and the proper execution of court directives. The court's insistence on clarity in legal proceedings and adherence to judicial orders is evident throughout the analysis.