2018 (11) TMI 103 - HC - Customs

Misdeclaration of origin of goods - intent to evade customs duty - demand based on the statements of importers and others, recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act - investigation still going on - Held that - Of course further investigation is going on and we cannot foresee what further evidence may be collected. Be that as it may, when yet show-cause notice for final adjudication has not been issued and even after issuance of show-cause notice, completion of the adjudication is bound to consume time, it would not be in anyone s interest to stop the clearance of goods when it is not the case of the department that the import of such materials has any other legal impediment. The question of correct assessment of duty and related issues such as penalty for mis-declaration if ultimately established and personal penalties would only be the question to be decided eventually. In the meantime, holding back the goods without clearance would invite mounting demurrage. The provisional release of goods permitted on fulfillment of certain conditions - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over the origination of imported goods.
2. Request for provisional release of goods.
3. Allegations of misdeclaration to evade customs duty.
4. Prima facie evidence against the importers.
5. Balancing equities and protecting revenue.
6. Conditions for provisional release of goods.

Analysis:

1. The petitions involved a dispute regarding the origination of imported goods, specifically areca nuts and black pepper claimed to be from Sri Lanka to benefit from customs duty concessions. However, the department suspected misdeclaration as the goods were believed to have originated from Indonesia or Vietnam, leading to the seizure of the goods.

2. The petitioners requested the provisional release of the detained goods due to prolonged detention, mounting demurrage charges, and delays in adjudication. They sought clearance on provisional terms similar to orders issued by other High Courts, involving bank guarantees and bonds.

3. The department alleged a clear attempt to evade customs duty through misdeclaration, supported by statements of importers indicating a history of such practices. The department contended that the petitioners were not the real importers, raising concerns about financial means to safeguard revenue interests.

4. The court observed that the department's case relied primarily on statements recorded under the Customs Act, noting ongoing investigations and the possibility of further evidence collection. The court emphasized the need to balance interests, considering the potential for higher duties and penalties if misdeclaration was proven.

5. In balancing equities and protecting revenue, the court decided to permit provisional release of the goods under specific conditions. These conditions included an unconditional bank guarantee, a personal bond, joint liability with the alleged real importer, and a deadline for fulfilling the conditions to ensure provisional release.

6. The court's decision to allow provisional release was based on the need to avoid demurrage charges, warehouse occupation, and delays in clearance. The specified conditions aimed to secure revenue interests while providing relief to the petitioners, pending the final adjudication of duty assessment and related penalties.

Overall, the judgment addressed the complexities of the case, balancing the interests of the parties involved and ensuring compliance with customs regulations through the provision of specific conditions for the provisional release of the disputed goods.