2018 (6) TMI 533 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of imported goods - pending adjudication - rejection of release on the ground that the appellant is not the owner of the goods and one Sh. Amardeep is the actual owner of the goods - Held that - The fact that the goods are lying with the Customs for more than 1 years and incurring detention charges is also to be appreciated. The best action in this case could have been early finalisation of the show cause notice - the matter should be adjudicated within one month - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of provisional release of imported goods pending adjudication.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals arising from the same set of facts regarding the denial of provisional release of imported goods pending adjudication. The appellants had declared certain goods in their Bills of Entry, but upon examination, it was discovered that additional undeclared items were present in the consignments. The appellants attributed this misdeclaration to a mistake by the foreign supplier during the Chinese New Year rush. The Revenue seized all goods, declared and undeclared, leading to the appellants' request for provisional release being denied.

The Commissioner rejected the request for provisional release primarily on the grounds that the appellants were not the actual owners of the goods, and further investigation was needed to verify ownership. Additionally, some goods required BIS certification under Intellectual Property Rights Rules, potentially leading to absolute confiscation. The Commissioner concluded that releasing the goods provisionally was not in the public interest at that stage.

The appellants argued that they were the importers as they held the IEC number and filed the Bills of Entry, emphasizing that the financier's role was irrelevant under Customs law. They admitted to the non-declaration of goods but contended that most items could be released upon payment of redemption fine as per Section 125 of the Customs Act. The appellants highlighted the significant delay in adjudication, resulting in substantial demurrage charges exceeding ?1 crore. They pointed out that the show cause notice proposed absolute confiscation only for drones, not all items, suggesting that other goods violating IPR Rules could be re-exported.

After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal acknowledged the extended detention of goods and emphasized the need for prompt adjudication. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to finalize the show cause notice within one month, with a provision for liberal consideration of releasing declared goods and redeemable items upon payment of fines if the notice couldn't be concluded within the stipulated timeframe. The appellants agreed not to seek provisional release for prohibited items or those violating rules, offering re-export as a solution. The Tribunal disposed of both appeals by remanding the matter for further proceedings within the specified timelines.