2020 (9) TMI 179 - HC - Customs

Release of petitioner - mis-declaration of imported goods - used and second hand goods - allegation against the petitioner is that he had imported hard disks from overseas declaring them to be new but the test reports indicate that the said goods are used goods - HELD THAT - Considering that the custom authorities have commenced proceedings against the petitioner in Mumbai and an order remanding the petitioner to custody has been passed by the learned CMM, Mumbai, this Court is of the view that even assuming that this court has jurisdction to entertain the present petition, it would not be apposite to do so. The petiton is, accordingly, disposed of leaving it open for the petitioner to avail of remedies before the concerned courts at Mumbai.

Summary

Issues:
Impugning arrest memo and seeking release, Allegation of importing used goods declared as new, Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition.

Impugning arrest memo and seeking release:
The petitioner filed a petition challenging the arrest memo dated 17.08.2020, which stated the reasons for the arrest related to the import of goods worth a significant amount involving customs duty. The petitioner was alleged to have imported hard disks declared as new but found to be used goods according to test reports. The respondent conceded that the issue of customs duty was erroneous and focused on the goods being liable for confiscation under specific sections of the Customs Act, 1962 due to being used and refurbished. The petitioner was arrested in Delhi, but the respondent argued that Mumbai courts would be appropriate for any relief considering the transit remand and judicial custody order by the learned CMM in Mumbai.

Allegation of importing used goods declared as new:
The core allegation against the petitioner was importing hard disks declared as new but tested to be used goods. The respondent contended that the goods were liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962, due to misdeclaration and violation of the Act. The petitioner's counsel argued for the jurisdiction of the Delhi court based on a previous court decision, but the court observed that since proceedings had commenced in Mumbai and the petitioner was remanded to custody by the learned CMM in Mumbai, it would not be appropriate for the Delhi court to entertain the petition. The court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to seek remedies in the Mumbai courts while reserving all rights and contentions of the petitioner.

Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition:
The petitioner sought relief in Delhi against the arrest memo related to the import of goods. The petitioner's counsel argued for the jurisdiction of the Delhi court based on the arrest in Delhi, while the respondent emphasized the ongoing proceedings in Mumbai and the remand order by the learned CMM there. The court, considering the actions taken in Mumbai, decided that even if it had jurisdiction, it would not be suitable to entertain the petition in Delhi. The petitioner was advised to avail remedies in the courts in Mumbai, and all rights and contentions of the petitioner were preserved. The petitioner's counsel mentioned filing a bail application before the concerned court, which would be considered promptly if filed.