2019 (6) TMI 226 - HC - Customs

Release of confiscated goods - LED battern fixture - LED panel light - LED flood light - HELD THAT - In the light of the admitted position by the respondent that there is no embargo in releasing all goods except drivers, the petitioner is directed to approach the respondent seeking release of the remaining goods upon which the respondent will release the remaining goods forthwith. As far as the confiscated goods are concerned, the respondent is at liberty to finalise the proceedings after hearing the petitioner. As far as the issue of demurrage and detention waiver certificate is concerned, the petitioner is directed to seek waiver of demurrage charges before the concerned authority, who shall consider the same in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Confiscation of LED drivers due to mismatch with BIS certificate.
2. Delay in response to petitioner's representations for release of goods.
3. Direction for release of remaining goods.
4. Procedure for finalizing proceedings regarding confiscated goods.
5. Demurrage and detention waiver certificate application process.

Confiscation of LED drivers due to mismatch with BIS certificate:
The petitioner imported three products, including LED drivers, in November 2018. Upon verification, it was discovered that the BIS registration number on the driver of the LED panel light did not match the BIS certificate provided. Consequently, 1,15,000 LED drivers valued at ?9,77,500 were confiscated along with the rest of the consignment. The court acknowledged the discrepancy and allowed the authorities to finalize proceedings after hearing the petitioner.

Delay in response to petitioner's representations for release of goods:
The petitioner had submitted representations on various dates in January 2019 seeking the release of the remaining goods, but did not receive any response from the respondent. The court took note of this delay and directed the petitioner to approach the respondent for the release of the goods, excluding the confiscated items, which the respondent was instructed to release promptly.

Direction for release of remaining goods:
Considering the respondent's admission that there was no hindrance in releasing all goods except the confiscated drivers, the court directed the petitioner to request the release of the remaining goods from the respondent. Upon such a request, the respondent was mandated to release the goods without delay. However, the confiscated goods were subject to further proceedings after a hearing.

Procedure for finalizing proceedings regarding confiscated goods:
The judgment allowed the respondent to conclude the proceedings concerning the confiscated goods after providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity to present their case. This directive ensured that the confiscation issue would be addressed through a proper legal process, safeguarding the rights of the petitioner.

Demurrage and detention waiver certificate application process:
Regarding the demurrage and detention charges, the petitioner was directed to seek a waiver from the concerned authority. The authority was instructed to review the waiver request in accordance with the law and grant a personal hearing to the petitioner before making a decision. This process aimed to provide a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case for the waiver.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras disposed of the Writ Petitions by addressing the issues of confiscation, delayed response, goods release, proceedings finalization, and waiver application in a comprehensive manner, ensuring justice and procedural fairness in each aspect of the judgment.

← Previous Next →