2019 (2) TMI 1575 - HC - Customs

Detention of imported goods - PCBA Module F250Y, Keypad, Front Camera, Back Camera and other allied goods - goods detained on the ground that the goods were mis-declared - benefit of Notification No.57/2018 dated 02.04.2018 - Held that - Provisional release of goods in question are liable to be granted upon the assesee providing sufficient security to the Department. The dispute raised in the present case relates to mis-declaration of goods. According to the petitioner, the goods imported are exempt from the levy of BCD of 10% whereas, according to the revenue, the goods imported do not attract the benefit of Notification No.57 of 2017 and are thus not eligible to Duty exemption. The revenue impact is thus contained to 10% of the Duty along with such interest and penalty as the authorities may see fit to levy/impose, after adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that no dispute has been raised by the authorities with respect to earlier Bills of Entry and two earlier consignments identical to the one in question and accompanied by identical declarations as in the present case were permitted to be cleared by the respondents in December 2018. Upon insistence of the authorities, the petitioner was constrained, under cover of letter dated 10.01.2019, to accept the re-classification of the earlier consignments along the lines of the classification determined by the authorities and has also paid the differential duty in respect of the aforesaid consignments. The petitioner is directed to remit 50% of the differential duty which shall be quantified by the respondent and communicated forthwith to the petitioner - The petitioner shall also furnish a personal bond in respect of the balance of the duty. Upon receipt of proof of remittance of the 50% of duty and execution of Personal Bond for the balance 50% of Duty, the goods shall be released forthwith. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of Seizure Memo and release of imported goods under Bill of Entry.
2. Classification of goods under Customs Tariff Headings.
3. Request for release of goods and procedural compliance.
4. Dispute resolution and provisional release of seized goods.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Quashing of Seizure Memo and Release of Imported Goods:
The petitioner sought quashing of the Seizure Memo dated 25.01.2019, which detained goods imported for the manufacture of mobile phones. The petitioner claimed exemption of basic customs duty under Notification No.57/2018. The respondents alleged misclassification under CTH 85177010 instead of 85177090, resulting in detention.

Issue 2: Classification of Goods under Customs Tariff Headings:
The Seizure Memo highlighted the misclassification of goods and withdrawal of duty exemption on Printed Circuit Board Assembly (PCBA) for mobile phones. The dispute centered on the correct classification and duty liability under the Customs Act, impacting the release of goods.

Issue 3: Request for Release of Goods and Procedural Compliance:
Despite objections and a release request by the petitioner, the goods remained detained, causing financial losses. The respondent cited a previous case law to challenge the maintainability of the writ petition, emphasizing the need for a formal request for release, which the petitioner had made earlier.

Issue 4: Dispute Resolution and Provisional Release of Seized Goods:
The judgment directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the differential duty, with the balance secured by a personal bond for the release of goods. The court highlighted the absence of an adjudication notice and allowed the authorities to proceed with the classification dispute resolution.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition by ordering the provisional release of goods upon compliance with the duty payment and bond requirements. The judgment emphasized the need for procedural adherence, dispute resolution, and compliance with customs regulations for the release of detained goods.