2022 (6) TMI 324 - HC - Customs

Destruction of consignment of goods imported by the petitioner - Import of 2nd Grade Wet Dates - existence of pests in the product imported or not - HELD THAT - The delay in approaching this Court against Ext.P7 itself, disables the petitioner from pursuing this writ petition. Ext.P7 was issued as early as on 29.12.2021 while this writ petition was preferred only on 04.03.2022. The remedy of an appeal provided under Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003 is seven days. The reason for prescribing the limited period of seven days is with a purpose, since, orders of destruction or other adverse orders ought to be appealed against, if aggrieved by the appropriate person, within limited time lines. Since the petitioner failed to prefer the statutory appeal within the time provided, recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution to overcome the said statutory period of limitation is not legally tenable. Leaving open the question of jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to issue an order of destruction, in cases where pests or diseases are not detected, this writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Ext.P7 order directing destruction of imported goods
Challenge to Ext.P8 order for confiscation, destruction, and penalty imposition

Analysis:
The petitioner contested Ext.P7 order issued by the 2nd respondent directing the destruction of the consignment of goods imported by the petitioner. The goods in question were "2nd Grade Wet Dates" imported by the petitioner with a Phytosanitary certificate from the Department of Quarantine in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The order for destruction was based solely on the absence of an endorsement on the certificate stating it was "free from Palm kernel borer." The petitioner argued that the 2nd respondent lacked the authority to order destruction without confirming the presence of pests in the product.

Regarding Ext.P8 order issued by the 3rd respondent, it involved confiscation, destruction, and penalty imposition. The petitioner, through their counsel, had expressed readiness to destroy the cargo and confirmed no possibility of re-export. The delay in approaching the court against Ext.P7 was noted, as the writ petition was filed significantly after the issuance of the order, beyond the statutory appeal period of seven days as prescribed under the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003. The court deemed the delay as a hindrance to pursuing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to circumvent the statutory limitation period.

The court acknowledged the petitioner's submission to the 3rd respondent requesting permission to destroy the cargo due to the absence of re-export possibilities. Consequently, the petitioner was estopped from challenging Ext.P8 order based on their own concessions. Despite leaving the question of the 2nd respondent's jurisdiction to issue a destruction order open, the court dismissed the writ petition due to the delay in filing and the petitioner's prior submission to destroy the cargo.

However, the court provided an opportunity for the petitioner to apply to the 3rd respondent within ten days from receiving the judgment, demonstrating the potential for re-export due to any changed circumstances. In such a case, the 3rd respondent would review the application and make a decision promptly.