1979 (7) TMI 109 - HC - Customs

Seizure - Jurisdiction - Goods of Nepalese origin if checked by land customs authorities - Nepal Treaty of Trade and Transit Agreement of Co-operation

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to detention of turmeric consignments for export; Seizure of goods under Customs Act, 1962; Origin of goods and transit through India under Indo-Nepal Treaty; Release of goods by customs authorities.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the detention of two turmeric consignments meant for export, arguing they were of Nepalese origin and lawfully in transit through India. The first consignment was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates release if no show cause notice is issued within six months. The respondent refuted seizure claims, citing the Port Trust's statutory bailee status and customs warehousing provisions. The court agreed with the respondent, stating the goods were under customs control and released after a second alleged seizure, allowing for a delayed show cause notice.

Regarding the origin of the goods, the petitioner presented evidence, including a certificate from Nepal Foreign Trade Association, indicating Nepalese origin. The Land Customs authority at the Indo-Nepal border had cleared the goods as Nepalese. The court noted the authorities' prior appointment of NAFED for an opinion on origin and subsequent release of 19 consignments, including the petitioner's, suggesting recognition of Nepalese origin. No evidence was found to support a change in the authorities' stance on the goods' origin.

Drawing parallels to a Supreme Court decision, the court acknowledged the similarity between the present case and a past ruling affirming goods' Nepalese origin. In light of the one-sided evidence supporting Nepalese origin and the absence of contrary evidence, the court concluded no Customs Act violation occurred during the goods' transit for export. The court granted a Writ of Mandamus directing the release of the consignments by the Port Trust and prohibiting customs interference with their export, subject to payment of dues.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the goods' Nepalese origin and lawful transit through India under the treaty. The judgment highlighted the absence of evidence supporting a change in the authorities' recognition of the goods' origin and ordered the release of the consignments. The court stayed the order's operation for two weeks, clarifying any further stay required appellate court approval.