2019 (4) TMI 449 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Supari (Betel Nuts) - goods seized primarily on the premise that the goods (Supari) are of foreign origin as has been informed by two unknown businessmen and therefore, they are being imported into India unauthorisedly - Held that - The goods (Supari) were already in India and as such there is no question of bringing the goods (Supari) inside India by the petitioner so as to categorise the transportation of goods as part of smuggling transaction - Moreover, by mere naked eyes even no businessman can certify that the goods (Supari) are of foreign origin and that there is no recognised Government Institute where the goods (Supari) could be inspected and certified so as to make distinction between local and that of foreign origin. List for admission/final disposal on the expiry of six weeks.

Summary

Issues: Seizure of goods under Customs Act, 1962; Allegations of unauthorized import; Dispute over origin of goods; Transfer of goods to Customs Department; Legal rights of the petitioner.

In this judgment by the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner, a registered selling dealer, had purchased Supari (Betel Nuts) from a registered dealer in Mizoram and was transporting it from Kolkata to New Delhi. The consignment was seized under the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, at Fatehpur but later released due to no discrepancies in the documents. However, the goods were not handed over to the petitioner or the purchasing dealer but to the Customs Department. The Customs Department, based on information from unknown businessmen, seized the goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging unauthorized import of foreign origin goods.

The petitioner argued that the Supari was not a restricted item under the Customs Act and that they were not the importers but had purchased it domestically. They contended that as the goods were already in India during transit, there was no smuggling involved. The petitioner also raised concerns about the lack of official certification for determining the origin of the goods. The court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit within a month and sought clarification on the legal basis for transferring the goods to the Customs Department.

The court ordered the release of the detained consignment of Supari and the vehicle carrying it, upon the petitioner providing security equivalent to the value of the goods and an undertaking to cooperate with any future Customs Department inquiries. The matter was listed for admission/final disposal after six weeks, with the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow, directed to be present at the next hearing to assist the court. The judgment aimed to address the legality of the seizure under the Customs Act, the dispute over the origin of the goods, and the rights of the petitioner as a selling dealer caught in the crossfire of regulatory actions.