2018 (1) TMI 1282 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Betel Nuts - notified goods u/s 11A(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - On this very aspect of the matter irrespective of the alternative remedy available for filing appeal, this court has entertained several writ petitions as ex facie the Customs Authorities have no power to seize betel-nuts - we do not consider it proper to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal and call upon the respondents to file counter-affidavit within a period of one month. An interim mandamus is issued to the respondents to release the seized goods of the petitioner on furnishing security other than cash and bank guarantee in respect of the total amount of the value of the goods and the penalty imposed if any - decided partly in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of betel-nuts by Customs Authorities.
2. Legality of seizure under Section 11A(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Entertaining writ petitions despite alternative appeal remedy.
4. Provisional release of seized goods with stringent conditions.
5. Challenge of onerous conditions for release of goods.
6. Interim mandamus for release of seized goods on alternative security.

Analysis:

The High Court addressed the issue of the Customs Authorities seizing betel-nuts belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that betel-nuts were not notified under Section 11A(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, implying no grounds for seizure or violation of the Act. Despite the availability of an appeal remedy, the Court entertained writ petitions due to the lack of power for betel-nuts' seizure by Customs Authorities.

Regarding the provisional release of the seized betel-nuts, stringent conditions were imposed, including a cash security of ?7,00,000, a bank guarantee of ?25,00,000, and a full value bond. The petitioner contended that these conditions were excessive. The Court noted a previous case where similar conditions were challenged, resulting in an order for release upon furnishing alternative security to the satisfaction of the authority concerned.

Consequently, an interim mandamus was issued to the respondents to release the seized goods upon providing security other than cash and bank guarantee equivalent to the total value of the goods and any imposed penalty. The Court scheduled the matter for admission/final disposal after a month, with specific mention of the counsel representing the respondents, emphasizing the need for compliance with the alternative security requirement.