2021 (6) TMI 959 - HC - Customs

Seeking provisional release of goods imported - prohibition on import of pepper or not - HELD THAT - The consignment is pepper, which is an agricultural product. Keeping the products unloaded and making the petitioner to pay demurrage charges is of no use to both the parties. Keeping the consignment in Government warehouse may lead to spoilage of the agricultural products. This Court is inclined to grant an Ad Interim Direction, directing the respondents to provisionally release the goods imported to the petitioner on the conditions imposed - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Ad interim direction for provisional release of imported goods pending disposal of writ petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought an ad interim direction for the provisional release of imported goods, specifically black pepper, purchased from sellers in Srilanka. The petitioner argued that the import of pepper was not prohibited, and all relevant documents were submitted to the respondents. The prolonged detention of goods could lead to spoilage, as pepper is an agricultural product. The petitioner emphasized the statutory duty of the respondents under Section 47 of the Customs Act to release the goods. The value of the pepper purchased was stated to be more than ?500 per kg, as evidenced by the bill of entries.

On the other hand, the respondents contended that the petitioner had purchased the pepper at a lower rate but created bills for a higher amount. They argued that the local market value of pepper was ?350 per kg, and importing at a higher rate seemed illogical. The respondents highlighted the need to safeguard the interests of local agriculturists and suggested that the petitioner could store the goods in a government warehouse at a lower rate. They also mentioned that the petitioner's failure to unload the goods promptly led to demurrage charges.

Additionally, the respondents presented evidence from a statement recorded by the DRI, Bangalore, from another purchaser of pepper, indicating discrepancies in purchase amounts to circumvent minimum import prices. The respondents had already issued an order for the seizure of goods, and releasing them would render the seizure proceedings ineffective. The court acknowledged the complexity of the case, involving statements from other purchasers and the nature of the agricultural product in question.

In light of the arguments presented, the court decided to grant an ad interim direction for the provisional release of the imported goods to the petitioner. However, certain conditions were imposed, including a deposit of ?50,00,000 and execution of a bond for ?6,00,00,000. The petitioner was restricted from alienating or altering the goods and had to ensure the safekeeping of the products within the local jurisdiction of the respondents. The respondents were directed to complete the inquiry within two weeks, and the petitioner was required to produce the goods as needed. Violation of any conditions would result in the automatic cancellation of the order.