2021 (1) TMI 769 - HC - Customs

Seeking clearance of the imported goods for home consumption - old and reusable MFDs - HELD THAT - We are not going into the issue as regards the reason for detention of the goods and the rights and liabilities of the writ applicant with regard to the imported of the goods. We are informed that this issue is at large before the Supreme Court in one another litigation. The rights and liabilities of the writ applicant shall be governed accordingly by the final verdict of the Supreme Court. However, the limited question we need to look into, as on date, is with respect to the plea of the writ applicant to provisional release of the goods. It appears from the materials on record that the writ applicant preferred an application dated 3rd October 2019 addressed to the ADG of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad for provisional release of the goods - the respondent No.2 should immediately look into the application dated 3rd October 2019 filed by the writ applicant (Annexure 'F' to this writ application) and take an appropriate decision as regards the plea for provisional release of the goods. Such decision shall be taken within a period of eight days from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Application for writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief for clearance of imported goods.
2. Detention of goods by customs authorities under Section 100 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Application for provisional release of goods under Section 110A of the Act.
4. Delay in passing orders on the application for provisional release.
5. Directions to the respondent to decide on the application for provisional release.
6. Consideration of relevant regulations and previous court judgments in deciding on provisional release.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The writ applicants sought relief through a writ application under Article 226 for the clearance of used MFDs imported by them. The applicants engaged in trading old and reusable MFDs, which are multifunctional office machines. They entered into contracts with foreign suppliers for the purchase of these goods. Upon arrival of the goods at ICD, Ahmedabad, the customs authorities raised objections leading to the detention of the goods by respondent No.3.

2. The detention of goods was under Section 100 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicants sought provisional release of the detained goods under Section 110A of the Act, which allows for the provisional release of seized goods pending adjudication. The applicants filed an application for provisional release, but no decision was made on it by the concerned authority.

3. The court directed the respondent to decide on the application for provisional release within eight days from the date of the order. In making the decision, the respondent was instructed to consider Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009, which prohibits charging rent or demurrage on seized or detained goods. The court emphasized the need for a prompt decision on the provisional release plea.

4. The court highlighted that the larger issue of the right to import such goods would be subject to the final outcome of the litigation before the Supreme Court. The court also referenced previous judgments, including one by the Supreme Court and another by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to guide the decision-making process regarding the provisional release of the detained goods.

5. Ultimately, the writ application was disposed of, with directions given to the respondent to promptly decide on the application for provisional release, considering the relevant regulations and previous court judgments. The court's decision aimed to ensure a fair and timely resolution of the matter concerning the clearance of the imported goods.