2020 (8) TMI 703 - HC - Customs

Provisional Release of seized goods - High end wrist watches - petitioner submitted that it would suffice for the disposal of the writ petition if a suitable direction is given to the respondents to provisionally release the goods which are detained by the respondent No.1 - HELD THAT - It appears that high end wrist watches have been seized and lying with the respondent No.2/DRI since 29th October, 2012. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that they are ready and willing to deposit the duty under protest. As per the show-cause notice issued by the respondent No.1, the duty amount mentioned is ₹ 52,19,582/-. Out of this amount, ₹ 27,50,669/- has already been deposited by the petitioner during the course of investigation - petitioner has shown the readiness and willingness to deposit the remaining amount of ₹ 24,68,913/- for the provisional release of the high end wrist watches, without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the adjudication process of the show-cause notice. The respondent No.1 directed to decide the application for the provisional release of the goods, in accordance with law - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods and release of detained items.
2. Provisional release of high-end wrist watches and other seized items.
3. Delay in adjudication of show-cause notice.
4. Readiness of petitioner to deposit remaining duty.
5. Comparison with orders favoring release of goods in similar cases.
6. Application for provisional release and decision by respondent authorities.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition sought a mandamus to release goods seized in 2012. The petitioner requested the provisional release of high-end wrist watches and other items detained by the authorities. Counsel for the petitioner emphasized the need for provisional release pending adjudication.

2. The petitioner expressed readiness to deposit the remaining duty amount for the release of the goods. A significant portion of the duty had already been deposited during the investigation. The petitioner was willing to deposit the balance amount without prejudice to their rights.

3. The delay in adjudicating the show-cause notice issued in 2013 was noted. Despite the issuance of the notice, no decision had been made by the authorities for an extended period. This delay was a crucial factor in the petitioner's plea for provisional release.

4. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the release orders in other cases involving high-end wrist watches, emphasizing the need for consistency in decisions. Reference was made to specific cases where similar goods were released by the authorities, indicating a precedent for provisional release.

5. The court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh application for provisional release, stating willingness to deposit the remaining duty. The authorities were instructed to decide on the application within a specified timeline, considering previous orders and legal provisions under the Customs Act.

6. Based on the submissions and precedents cited, the court disposed of the writ petition, instructing the respondent to process the application for provisional release promptly. The petitioner was given a deadline to file the application, and the respondent was mandated to decide on the release within a specific timeframe, ensuring compliance with legal procedures and previous judgments.