2019 (6) TMI 577 - HC - Customs

Release of goods pending finalization of investigation - HELD THAT - It is undertaken that if the appellant is prepared to furnish the bank guarantee as well as to execute the bond immediately after completion of the valuation, the goods can be released pending finalisation of the investigation, at the most within a period of two weeks from today. The above undertaking is hereby recorded. With respect to the other contentions regarding recording of the statement, it is undertaken on behalf of the appellant that the appellant will appear for the purpose of investigation at any point of time before the Investigating Officer, if notice/summons in that respect is issued in his address in Kerala, in advance, atleast granting time of two weeks. The said undertaking is also recorded. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to judgment of Single Judge, release of detained goods, time limit for release, appearance before Investigating Officer

Challenge to Judgment of Single Judge:
The petitioner challenged the judgment of the Single Judge dated 29.01.2019, which involved the detention of goods imported by the appellant due to suspected evasion of customs duty. The appellant sought release of the goods based on an offer to provide a bank guarantee for the value of the goods. The Single Judge directed the release of the goods upon the appellant executing a bond and furnishing a bank guarantee based on a valuation to be conducted by the Department. The judgment was impugned on the grounds of lack of a stipulated time limit for release and the requirement for the petitioner's appearance before the Investigating Officer, especially problematic as the petitioner was abroad at the time.

Release of Detained Goods:
The respondents agreed to release the goods pending finalization of proceedings if the appellant furnished a bank guarantee based on an independent valuation to be conducted by the Department. The learned Standing Counsel assured that the valuation process would be completed promptly, and if the appellant provided the bank guarantee and executed the bond immediately after valuation, the goods could be released within a maximum of two weeks. The appellant also undertook to appear before the Investigating Officer for investigation if notice or summons was issued to his address in Kerala with a minimum of two weeks' notice.

Time Limit for Release:
The main contention regarding the judgment was the absence of a specified time limit for the release of goods, leading to concerns about unnecessary delays by the Department. The undertaking given by the respondents ensured that the goods would be released within a maximum of two weeks from the date of the undertaking, provided the appellant complied with the requirements promptly.

Appearance Before Investigating Officer:
Another issue raised was the requirement for the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer before the goods could be released, which posed challenges as the petitioner was currently abroad. The appellant agreed to cooperate and appear for investigation at any time if given advance notice of at least two weeks to make necessary arrangements, addressing the practical difficulties caused by the initial condition.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of, and the impugned judgment was modified to include the specified time limit for release and the provision for the petitioner's appearance before the Investigating Officer with adequate notice.