9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1066 - HC - CustomsRelease of seized goods - Betel Nuts - power of DRI under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 - prayer of the petitioner herein is that since the DRI authorities have kept the said huge amount of Betel Nut for over more than 2 (two) months, it should now be released to him considering it to be an unlawful seizure in abuse of the power vested under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Held that - It is seen from the annexures that statement of the petitioner and other persons involved in the case have already been recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and that the respondents No. 2 and 3 being DRI Officials are not proper officers to decide provisional release of the seized goods seized under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 - Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for an appeal against any such order passed by the authority concerned under the Customs Act and in the present case, it is only after issuing the show-cause notice to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted his reply, the Additional Commissioner of Customs Department on consideration of the report dated 20.11.2017 of the Regional Plant Quarantine Station, Kolkata showed that the test sample of said seized betel nuts were found to be infested by fungus Aspergillus sp. , the concerned adjudicating authority under the Customs Act, 1962 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for such provisional release of the areca nuts seized in the present case. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation and as Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 itself provides for an appeal against any order passed under the said 1962 Act before the appropriate authority as provided in the said Act - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. Vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal 2013 (8) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT . This writ petition of the petitioner, being not maintainable, his prayer for provisional release of the seized article (areca nuts) cannot be considered - appeal dismissed being not maintainable.
Issues:
Challenge to Seizure Inventory under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 for Betel Nuts; Allegation of Unlawful Seizure; Request for Release of Seized Goods; Validity of Reports from Private Institutes; Proper Officer for Deciding Provisional Release; Legal Basis of Seizure under Customs Act, 1962; Rejection of Provisional Release Application; Applicability of Statutory Remedies; Maintainability of Writ Petition for Provisional Release. Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to Seizure Inventory: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging Seizure Inventory No. 04/CL/IMP/DRI/SIL/2017-18 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking the release of 15,825 kgs. of Betel Nuts seized by the Assistant Director of the DRI. 2. Allegation of Unlawful Seizure: The petitioner contended that the seizure was unlawful and abusive of power under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the Betel Nuts were held for over two months without proper justification. 3. Request for Release of Seized Goods: The petitioner requested the release of the seized Betel Nuts, arguing that the DRI authorities failed to establish the smuggled nature of the goods and based the seizure on assumptions of non-Indian origin. 4. Validity of Reports: The petitioner disputed the validity of reports from private institutes regarding the seized Betel Nuts, claiming non-furnishing of reports and rejection order, emphasizing that the reports should not be considered. 5. Proper Officer for Provisional Release: It was argued that DRI officials were not proper officers to decide on the provisional release of seized goods under the Customs Act, 1962, raising concerns about the decision-making authority in the case. 6. Legal Basis of Seizure: The seizure was based on allegations of illegal importation into India through an unauthorized route, violating specific sections of the Customs Act, 1962, and import regulations, as outlined in the Seizure Inventory dated 25.11.2017. 7. Rejection of Provisional Release Application: The Additional Commissioner rejected the petitioner's application for provisional release citing test reports indicating infestation of the Betel Nuts with fungus, rendering them unfit for human consumption. 8. Applicability of Statutory Remedies: Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for an appeal against orders under the Act, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. Maintainability of Writ Petition: Citing precedents, the court held that when statutory remedies are available for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's writ petition for provisional release. 10. Final Directions: The writ petition was deemed not maintainable, and the petitioner was directed to approach the appropriate authority for the copy of the order rejecting the provisional release application, in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
|
