2019 (5) TMI 833 - HC - Customs

Detention of imported goods - consignment of miscellaneous items including Flavour for Hookah, E-Sheesha Pen E-Liquid - detention on the ground that the Petitioner had failed to get a No objection Certificate from the concerned authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as was mandated by a circular dated 27th November, 2018 issued by the Department - HELD THAT - The Court sees no reason why the Petitioner s goods should not be released considering that the Circular in terms of which they were detained has been stayed by the learned Single Judge. The Respondent is directed to release the goods detained under the aforementioned Bill of Entry dated 4th January, 2019 to the Petitioner subject to such terms as the Respondent may think appropriate. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Detention of imported goods due to lack of 'No objection Certificate' under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Compliance with a circular dated 27th November, 2018. Stay order on the circular by a learned Single Judge in a previous case. Discrepancy in releasing goods compared to other importers. Lack of clarity on filing an appeal against the Single Judge's order.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the detention of imported goods, including specific items like "Flavour for Hookah, E-Sheesha Pen & E-Liquid," due to the absence of a 'No objection Certificate' as required by a circular from the Department under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

2. The detention was based on the circular issued on 27th November, 2018. However, it came to light that the operation of this circular had been stayed by a learned Single Judge in a previous case (WP(C) No.2688/2019 - M/s Focus Brands Trading India Private Limited v. Directorate General of Health Services) through an order dated 18th March, 2018.

3. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from the fact that while other importers with similar goods had their consignments released following the interim order, their goods were still detained solely due to the pending writ petition.

4. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the disparity in treatment, emphasizing that goods identical to those imported by the petitioner had been released post the stay order, raising concerns about the inconsistency in the department's actions.

5. Notably, the Respondent's counsel was unsure about any potential appeal against the Single Judge's order, indicating a lack of clarity or decision on the part of the department regarding the legal course of action to be taken.

6. The High Court, after considering the stay on the circular and the circumstances of the case, found no valid reason to continue withholding the petitioner's goods and directed the Respondent to release the detained goods subject to any appropriate terms the Respondent may deem necessary.

7. The Court's decision mandated the release of goods within a week from the date of the judgment, ensuring a timely resolution to the petitioner's grievance and upholding the principles of justice and fairness in the matter.

8. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, signifying the resolution of the issue in favor of the petitioner, with the Court's order for immediate release of the goods providing a conclusive end to the legal dispute.

9. The comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved, including compliance with regulations, judicial orders, and the equitable treatment of parties in matters of import and trade, showcasing the nuanced approach of the High Court in resolving complex legal issues efficiently and fairly.