2020 (1) TMI 331 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - service of SCN still pending - time limit to issue SCN - HELD THAT - The respondents have already issued a seizure memo dated 16th August, 2019 and further looking to the fact that an application for provisional release of goods has already been accepted by the respondents subject to petitioner furnishing a Bond equivalent to FOB value of goods, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Premature filing of the petition before the expiration of the time limit for issuing Show Cause Notice.
2. Acceptance of the request for provisional release of goods subject to furnishing a bond.
3. Allegations of overvaluation of goods and the petitioner's cooperation in determining the correct market value.

Analysis:
The High Court considered the submission that the goods in question were detained on a specific date, and a Seizure Memo was issued accordingly. The learned counsel for the respondents highlighted the provision under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for the issuance of a Show Cause Notice within a six-month period, set to expire in the future. The Court noted that since the time limit for issuing the Show Cause Notice had not lapsed, the petition was deemed premature.

Furthermore, the respondents informed the Court that they had accepted the request for provisional release of the goods, pending the petitioner's furnishing of a Bond equal to the Freight on Board (FOB) value. The Court acknowledged this acceptance but emphasized the requirement for the petitioner's compliance with the bond condition for the release of the goods.

Additionally, the respondents argued that the case involved allegations of overvaluation of the goods intended for export, necessitating cooperation from the petitioner in determining the accurate market value. The Court considered this aspect, emphasizing the importance of the petitioner's cooperation in resolving the matter effectively.

In light of the submissions made by the respondents, including the issuance of the seizure memo, acceptance of the provisional release request subject to bond furnishing, and the need for cooperation in determining accurate market value, the Court concluded that there was no basis to entertain the writ petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition in its entirety.