2021 (4) TMI 410 - HC - Customs

Seeking re-export of imported goods - petitioner was carrying with him four mobile phones, which was considered to be in excess of permissible limit - failure to make a declaration under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Whether a specific averment has been taken either in the representation or in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that immediately on landing, the petitioner did make a declaration under Section 77 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to draw my attention to any such averment either in the representation or in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Unless the person has legal right to seek consideration of one's representation, he cannot maintain a writ of mandamus - there are no ground to grant relief - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of goods at customs for exceeding permissible limit
2. Request for re-export of detained goods under Section 80 of Customs Act, 1962
3. Failure to make a declaration under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962
4. Maintainability of the writ petition for mandamus relief

Analysis:
The petitioner, an Indian national and UAE resident, arrived in India with four mobile phones exceeding the permissible limit, detained by customs. The petitioner sought re-export through a representation, leading to a writ petition for directing the customs authority to decide on the representation. The respondents opposed the request, citing the petitioner's failure to declare the goods under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judge examined the legal provisions, including Section 80 allowing temporary detention for re-export upon request, and Section 77 mandating a declaration for baggage clearance.

The standing counsel argued that the petitioner's failure to declare the goods and being intercepted in the green channel rendered the writ petition unsustainable, referencing past judgments. The judge inquired about any declaration made by the petitioner upon landing, which the petitioner's counsel failed to substantiate in the representation or supporting affidavit. Consequently, the judge concluded that without a legal basis to seek consideration through a writ of mandamus, the relief could not be granted. The writ petition was dismissed, but the adjudicating authority was directed to conclude proceedings within eight weeks independently of the petition's outcome. The dismissal did not affect the ongoing adjudication, and no costs were awarded.