2022 (2) TMI 267 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of goods - seeking declaration that the respondents do have the jurisdiction to put on hold and/or put on alert and deal with the IEC of the petitioner - HELD THAT - In view of the description of the goods in the bill of shippings, since the investigation is directed to be completed within a period of four months from today, interest of justice would be met with if the order of provisional release is modified by permitting the petitioner to export goods in question on submission of bond equivalent to declared value of goods and submission of bank guarantee to the extent of 20% of the duty drawback payable. The impugned order is modified by issuing such directions. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to submit PR Bond within a period of three days from today and the bank guarantee to the extent of 20% of the duty drawback payable within one week from today. Issue of detention charges - issuance of detention certificate - HELD THAT - The petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the respondents for waiver. If any such application is made within one week from today, the respondents shall pass an appropriate order on such represent within two weeks thereafter, in accordance with law. The order that would be passed by the respondents shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of passing of such order. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to export the goods which are subject matter of the impugned order upon the petitioner submitting PR Bond equivalent to declared value of goods within three days from today and upon furnishing of bank guarantee to the extent of 20% of the duty drawback payable within one week from today. It is made clear that the goods shall be permitted to be released only after the petitioner complying with the aforesaid two conditions - The impugned order of provisional release dated 4th January, 2022 is modified - petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Validity of the provisional release order dated 4th January, 2022
2. Jurisdiction of the respondents to deal with the IEC of the petitioner
3. Placement of the petitioner on the put alert list
4. Conditions imposed in the provisional release order
5. Detention charges and issuance of detention certificate

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the provisional release order dated 4th January, 2022, issued by the respondent. The order permitted the provisional release of goods seized under a seizure memo dated 17th December, 2021, against a bond and a bank guarantee. The petitioner challenged the conditions imposed in the order.

2. The petitioner argued that being placed on the put alert list by the respondents caused hardship in current and future exports. The respondents justified the alert list by stating it was for careful examination of goods and sample testing. The Court directed the completion of investigations within four months.

3. The respondents alleged mis-description of goods in past exports by the petitioner. The Court directed the completion of investigations within four months, with the petitioner's cooperation. The petitioner agreed to cooperate, and undertakings were accepted by the Court.

4. The conditions in the provisional release order were contested by the petitioner, citing judgments from the Gujarat High Court and a previous judgment of the Bombay High Court. The Court modified the order, allowing export upon submission of a bond and a bank guarantee.

5. The petitioner was given liberty to represent for waiver of detention charges and issuance of a detention certificate. Any such application was to be decided within two weeks of submission. The Court directed the petitioner to comply with conditions for release of goods subject to ongoing investigations.

6. The Court modified the impugned order of provisional release and disposed of the writ petition accordingly, with no costs imposed. The parties were directed to act on an authenticated copy of the judgment, keeping all contentions open for future proceedings.

← Previous Next →