2018 (6) TMI 266 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - alternative remedy - disputed question of facts - Provisional release of goods - whether communication dated 28th May, 2018 was an order passed under Section 110A of the Act? - Counsel for the petitioner accepts that an order under Section 110A of the Customs Act can be made subject matter of an appeal - Held that - We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and leave it to the petitioner to invoke the statutory appellate remedy. Disputed questions of facts are involved as is apparent from the chequered history. Preliminary question and issue would be regarding to valuation of Hops Pellet imported from Germany. Consignment was imported in February, 2016. The show cause notice was issued on 23rd January, 2017. Request for provisional release was made after 18 months of seizure. Without making any comments on merits, we leave it to the petitioner to invoke statutory appellate remedy - petition dismissed as not entertained.

Summary

Issues: Preliminary objection regarding appealable communication/order under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962; Ambiguity in communication dated 28th May, 2018; Conditions imposed in the provisional release order dated 28th May, 2018.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses a preliminary objection raised by the respondents regarding the appealability of the communication/order dated 28th May, 2018 under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner's counsel argued that previous decisions by the Delhi High Court have seen interference with such orders, making statutory remedies ineffective in some cases. However, the respondents referred to a previous order where the court did not entertain a writ petition, leaving it to the petitioner to pursue statutory appellate remedies.

2. The case involves the import of 'Hops Pellets' from Germany in February 2016, with the petitioner filing a bill of entry for home consumption almost four months later. Subsequently, one of the petitioner's directors was arrested in connection with a similar import, leading to the seizure of the Hops Pellets on the grounds of undervaluation in July 2016. The petitioner later requested warehousing under Section 49 of the Act, followed by a show cause notice in January 2017, with proceedings pending adjudication.

3. During the proceedings, the petitioner requested correction of a clerical error in the bill of entry, leading to the deposit of excess duty. Additionally, a request for provisional release under Section 110A was made in March 2018, resulting in a writ petition due to delays in processing. The provisional release order was eventually passed on 28th May, 2018, which the petitioner found issue with regarding the imposed conditions.

4. The court, after considering the arguments and the complex factual background of the case, decided not to entertain the writ petition. The court emphasized that disputed questions of fact, such as the valuation of the imported goods and the timing of requests and notices, should be addressed through the statutory appellate remedy. The judgment highlights the importance of allowing the petitioner to invoke the statutory appeal process for a more expedient resolution of the case, without making any comments on the merits of the dispute.

5. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition without imposing costs, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy for addressing the issues raised in the case. The judgment underscores the significance of following the established appellate process for resolving disputes related to customs matters effectively.