2020 (1) TMI 554 - HC - Customs

Release the goods seized by the Customs Department from the Railway Brake-Van at Hajipur - shoes of foreign origin - writ petition has been structured on the ground that no notice was sent to the petitioners or even if it was sent, it was not served upon them and therefore if there has not been any sequel action within six months of the seizure - HELD THAT - What has been harped upon by the counsel for the Customs Department is that now the matter is before the adjudicating authority which had issued summons to the petitioners about which the petitioners are aware of - After the aforesaid points were noted, learned counsel for the petitioners deemed it prudent to seek liberty to move before the adjudicating authority for release of goods. In case the petitioners approach the Customs authorities and satisfy them that they are the rightful claimants of the seized goods and produce documents in support of their claim, the same shall be considered by the Custom authorities and a reasoned order shall be passed within a period of four weeks of the receipt of such representation to be filed by the petitioner within a period of one week of the passing of this order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction sought for the release of seized goods by Customs Department.
2. Claim of ownership by petitioners based on valid cash memo.
3. Allegation of fake cash memos and goods being smuggled.
4. Jurisdiction of Customs Department and adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The petitioners approached the Court seeking a direction for the release of goods seized by the Customs Department, which were shoes of foreign origin purchased by them from Dimapur with a valid cash memo. The seizure was based on information about transportation of foreign shoes. The petitioners claimed ownership and applied for release after a notice sent to them was returned unserved. The petitioners argued that in the absence of any action within six months of seizure and no other claimant, the goods should be released to them.

On the other hand, the Customs Department contended that the seizure was made based on secret information, and efforts were made to verify the authenticity of the consignor and consignee. Investigations revealed that the shoes were not from the claimed shops in Dimapur and the cash memos were found to be fake. The shop owners denied selling foreign shoes to the petitioners. The Customs Department argued that if the goods were smuggled and duty not paid, they cannot be released to the petitioners. The matter was before the adjudicating authority, and summons had been issued to the petitioners.

The Court disposed of the petition with a direction for the petitioners to approach the Customs authorities with supporting documents to prove ownership. If satisfied, the Customs authorities would pass a reasoned order within four weeks. The petitioners were given one week to file a representation with the Customs authorities. This decision allowed the petitioners an opportunity to establish their claim before the Customs Department and ensured a timely resolution of the matter.