2019 (12) TMI 1095 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - pre-mature stage - matter still under investigation - Provisional release of goods - bed sheets - as per submissions of the petitioner, the goods in question are bed sheets, imported from China, whereas as per submission of the respondent-DRI, since there was a mis-declaration about the value and classification of the goods in the Bill of Entry, therefore, the goods in question have been held up - HELD THAT - It appears that since the DRI DZU is still investigating, the goods in question and a show cause notice is yet to be issued, we cannot entertain this petition at this pre-mature stage. The respondents have all powers, jurisdiction and authority to issue show cause notice within a period of six months and therefore, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition, at this stage - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Petition seeking writ of mandamus for no objection certificate and provisional release of goods.
2. Mis-declaration of value and classification of imported goods.
3. Jurisdiction of DRI to issue show cause notice.
4. Dismissal of writ petition due to premature stage of investigation.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus order for the issuance of a no objection certificate and provisional release of imported goods. The goods in question were bed sheets imported from China. However, the respondent-DRI held up the goods due to mis-declaration of value and classification in the Bill of Entry. The court considered the submissions of both parties and noted that the DRI was still investigating the matter, and a show cause notice had not yet been issued. Consequently, the court concluded that the petition could not be entertained at this premature stage.

2. The court emphasized that the respondent had the authority to issue a show cause notice within six months and that the petition could not be entertained until the investigation by the DRI was completed. The court highlighted that any application for the provisional release of goods should be made to the respondent, who would decide based on applicable laws, rules, regulations, and government policies. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it could not be entertained at that stage of the investigation.

3. The judgment underscores the importance of allowing the investigative authorities to complete their inquiries before seeking court intervention. It highlights the jurisdiction of the DRI to issue show cause notices and make decisions regarding the release of goods based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The court's decision to dismiss the petition serves as a reminder of the legal process that must be followed in cases involving the importation of goods and potential violations of customs regulations.

4. In conclusion, the judgment provides a clear delineation of the legal principles governing the issuance of no objection certificates, provisional release of goods, and the jurisdiction of investigative authorities like the DRI. By dismissing the writ petition due to its premature stage, the court upholds the procedural requirements and emphasizes the need for investigations to be completed before seeking judicial intervention in matters concerning customs violations and importation issues.