2021 (7) TMI 916 - HC - Customs

Seeking immediate release the goods without charging any demurrage or rent charges - auction of seized goods ordered, despite deposit of duty and detention certificate for waiver of rent/demurrage charges - HELD THAT - The matter requires consideration. Issue notice to respondent no. 3, returnable with five weeks. Steps may be taken within a week. All the respondent may file their counter affidavits within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter. List thereafter.

Summary

Issues:
Petition for immediate release of goods without demurrage charges. Discrepancy in value of imported goods leading to detention and auction by customs authorities.

Analysis:
The petition filed by M/S Global International seeks the immediate release of goods without demurrage or rent charges from M/s Container Corporation of India Limited. The petitioner, engaged in the import business and duly registered under various departments, filed two Bills of Entry for import of goods which were initially examined and found to comply with the declaration. However, the customs authorities raised concerns about the declared value of the goods, leading to a re-assessment process. The authorities issued a show cause notice for redetermination of value and imposition of entry under section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) later set aside the Joint Commissioner's order and accepted the value declared by the petitioner, clarifying that there is no requirement for EPR-Authorisation prior to filing the bill of entry. Despite the petitioner's deposit of duty and detention certificate for waiver of rent/demurrage charges, the respondent proceeded to auction the seized items, causing grievance to the petitioner.

The High Court, after hearing both parties, issued notice to the respondent no. 3, directing them to respond within five weeks. Counter affidavits are to be filed within four weeks, with an additional week for the rejoinder affidavit. In the interim, the third respondent is restrained from carrying out the auction of the seized items. The court deemed the matter worthy of consideration, indicating a need for further examination and resolution of the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the detention and auction of the goods despite compliance with the customs procedures and requirements. The case highlights the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal provisions in matters of import and customs regulations, emphasizing the need for a just and equitable resolution in line with the principles of natural justice and due process.