2019 (6) TMI 886 - HC - Customs

Permission to withdraw appeal - Provisional release of the seized goods - Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - availability of the benefit of the duty-free export authorization - N/N. 98 of 2009 dated 11th September, 2009 - import of In shell walnuts for export of biscuits - HELD THAT - In view of the statement made on behalf of the Respondents, Mr. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on instructions, seeks to withdraw this Petition, with liberty to urge all other contentions before an appropriate forum. Liberty as prayed for, granted. Petition disposed of as withdrawn.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order allowing provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 based on duty-free export authorization and Notification No.98 of 2009.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Provisional Release Order:
The Petition challenges the order allowing provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The issue primarily revolves around the availability of the benefit of duty-free export authorization in conjunction with Notification No.98 of 2009 for the import of In shell walnuts for export of biscuits. The Petitioner asserts that this issue has been settled in their favor by decisions of the Tribunal and the Madhya Pradesh High Court. However, the impugned order dated 16th April, 2019 is criticized for not considering these facts and imposing a condition of a bank guarantee for 50% of the value for the grant of provisional release.

2. Availability of Alternate Remedy:
The Respondents argue that there is an alternate remedy available for filing an appeal against the impugned order dated 16th April, 2019. Despite this, the learned Counsel for the Respondents acknowledges that the impugned order did not take into account the Petitioner's contentions. Consequently, the Commissioner of Customs, as an adjudicating authority, has undertaken to hear the Petitioner's contentions for the release of goods and to pass an appropriate order by a specified date.

3. Withdrawal of Petition:
Following the statement made on behalf of the Respondents and the assurance of the Commissioner of Customs to consider the Petitioner's contentions, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to withdraw the Petition. The withdrawal is granted with liberty for the Petitioner to assert all other contentions before an appropriate forum. As a result, the Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the provided liberty for the Petitioner to pursue their arguments in the future legal proceedings.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment outlines the key issues raised in the Petition challenging the provisional release order under the Customs Act, 1962, the availability of an alternate remedy, and the subsequent withdrawal of the Petition with liberty granted to the Petitioner for future legal actions.