2020 (10) TMI 234 - HC - Customs

Direction to the Respondent to allow re-export of the goods - Clove - violation of FSSAI Act - HELD THAT - The order passed by the Commissioner is not what the High Court had intended when it had passed the order dated 03.07.2020. Such disposal of representation is no disposal. This Court had directed the Commissioner to take a decision one way or the other on the representation of the Petitioner to grant permission for re-export of the goods in question in accordance with law. Instead of taking the necessary decision, Commissioner has deferred taking such decision for an indefinite period. The Commissioner is directed to pass a fresh or consequential order in terms of our earlier order dated 03.07.2020 on the prayer of the Petitioner for re-export of the goods in question by taking necessary decision in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made above. This shall be done within a period of two weeks from today. This order shall be communicated by Mr. Jetly to the Commissioner. Order passed shall be placed before the Court on the next date - Stand over to 06.10.2020.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of order for re-export of goods; Disposal of representation by Commissioner of Customs; Compliance with FSSAI Act; No Objection Certificate from FSSI; Court's directive for decision on re-export permission.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the re-export of goods. The petitioner had initially approached the court, and a directive was issued to the Commissioner to decide on the re-export request within a specified period. However, the Commissioner's subsequent order did not align with the court's directive, leading to the petitioner filing a fresh petition challenging the decision.

The Commissioner's order highlighted a violation of the FSSAI Act concerning specific Bill of Entry numbers and indicated that the matter required adjudication by the Competent Authority. While one Bill of Entry had issues pending adjudication, the other had a No Objection Certificate from FSSI, but a final decision was pending the receipt of a report from PQ authorities. Consequently, the Commissioner disposed of the representation for re-export, citing pending requirements that needed fulfillment before entertaining the request.

Upon review, the court found the Commissioner's decision to be inadequate and not in line with its earlier directive. The court emphasized that the Commissioner's deferral of a decision on the re-export request was unacceptable and directed the Commissioner to issue a fresh order within a specific timeframe, adhering to the court's previous order and considering the relevant legal provisions. The court mandated that the new order be communicated to the Commissioner's representative and be presented in court on the next hearing date.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the discrepancies in the Commissioner's decision regarding the re-export of goods and reiterated the importance of complying with legal procedures and court directives in such matters. The court's intervention aimed to ensure a timely and lawful resolution to the petitioner's request for re-export, emphasizing the need for proper consideration of all relevant factors and adherence to legal requirements.