2020 (2) TMI 241 - HC - Customs

Detention of imported goods - over-valuation - Board's Circular No. 01/2011 Cus. dated 04/01/2011 - HELD THAT - The goods have already been ordered to be provisionally released upon certain conditions and, therefore, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition. The Supreme Court has in its recent decision in THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ORS. VERSUS M/S KAY PAN FRAGRANCE PVT. LTD. 2019 (12) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT has criticized the practice of writ Courts directing release of the seized goods where the statute provides for provisional release. Since, an order of the provisional release is appealable order, hence also, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention and seizure of goods for over-valuation.
2. Provisional release conditions imposed by authorities.
3. Petitioner's request for de-freezing bank account.
4. Criticism of writ courts directing release of seized goods.
5. Appealability of provisional release order.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the release of an export consignment detained since 10.06.2019 due to alleged over-valuation. The goods, mixed cotton printed handloom bed sheets, were initially valued at &8377; 2,20,72,852/- in the shipping bills. However, after examination by Ahmedabad Textile Industrial Research Association, the value was assessed at &8377; 22,28,700/-. Consequently, the goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 31st August, 2019.

2. Respondent authorities offered provisional release of the goods subject to conditions, including furnishing a suitable bank guarantee and bond as per Board's Circular. Despite the option provided on 09.10.2019, the petitioner did not respond. The respondent No.3 seized the goods under a belief of misdeclaration and recorded statements indicating overvaluation, with no retraction filed till date.

3. The petitioner also sought the de-freezing of a bank account, which was reportedly done on 1st November, 2019, as confirmed by the respondents during the proceedings.

4. The judgment referenced a recent Supreme Court decision criticizing writ courts for directing the release of seized goods when provisions for provisional release exist. This observation underscores the statutory framework's importance and the limitations on writ courts in such matters.

5. The court dismissed the writ petition, noting that the goods were already ordered for provisional release upon certain conditions, making the petition redundant. The appealability of the provisional release order was highlighted, indicating that the proper recourse for the petitioner would be through the appellate process rather than a writ petition.