2018 (12) TMI 268 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of goods - perfumes / deodorants - Section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - The petitioner would inform the respondents about the correct addresses where summons could be served. The petitioner s director would make himself available to the Customs Department by appearing before the assessing officer on Monday, 3rd December, 2018 and thereafter whenever called for by the respondents. We are satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner s director in his affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 29.11.2018 for not responding to the summons. This coupled with the assurance given to us that the petitioner s director would cooperate with the investigation and make himself available before the Adjudicating Authority on 3.12.2018 and thereafter whenever called, would not warrant dismissal o the peritonitis on account of the petitioner s conduct as canvassed by the Revenue. Both the proceedings i.e investigation and provisional release application can proceed at the same time. The respondents are directed under Section 110A of the Act to deal with the application for provisional release of goods seized, pending investigation. The Respondents must perform their statutory duties and dispose of the application dated 30.9.2018 in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking direction for provisional release of imported perfumes/deodorants seized under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 pending adjudication.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a Bill of Entry dated 9.9.2018 to import perfumes/deodorants, which were seized by customs officers under Section 110 of the Act on 9.10.2018. The petitioner sought provisional release of the goods under Section 110A pending adjudication. The application for provisional release was pending, and the petitioner requested a direction for its early disposal.

2. The Revenue contended that the petitioner was uncooperative, making it difficult to proceed with the investigation. Summons sent to the petitioner's address were returned as unknown, hindering communication. The Revenue argued against the court's intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution due to the petitioner's lack of cooperation.

3. The petitioner's counsel explained that the petitioner was relocating to Mumbai, resulting in irregular attendance of staff at the Delhi office, leading to the non-receipt of summons. The petitioner assured cooperation, providing correct addresses for future communication and committing the director's availability for investigation. The court found the explanation satisfactory and directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation.

4. The court allowed both the investigation and the provisional release application to proceed simultaneously. The respondents were directed to process the application for provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A, emphasizing the need to fulfill statutory duties and dispose of the application in accordance with the law.

5. The petitioner was permitted to file further representations supporting the application for provisional release, and the Revenue committed to disposing of the application within two weeks of receiving the additional representation. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, maintaining a balanced approach in addressing the issues raised by both parties.