2022 (7) TMI 776 - HC - Customs

Seeking direction to the second respondent to release the imported goods - defatted coconut - desiccated coconut or not - HELD THAT - Since Sri Jeevan J Neeralgi is categorical in his submissions that if an application was filed during the pendency of the original proceedings under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, the adjudicating authority could have considered provisional release of the goods subject to the terms as regards security for the price of the imported goods, the question of granting liberty as now requested is considered. If the petitioner could have availed such remedy during the pendency of the original proceedings, if there is a second appeal by the authorities and if it is not contested and that there is no interim order in such appeal by the authority, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner must be at liberty to file an application for provisional release of the imported goods and there must be an expedited decision on such application - The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 before the adjudicating authority, even without waiting for a certified copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over imported goods classification - 'defatted coconut' vs. 'desiccated coconut'
2. Request for release of imported goods pending appeal
3. Provisional release of goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with a dispute regarding the classification of imported goods as 'defatted coconut' by the petitioner and 'desiccated coconut' by the authorities. The petitioner sought direction for release of goods based on an order in appeal. The court noted that if the appeal order supports the petitioner's claim, the goods must be released without conditions.

2. The respondent argued that they have challenged the appeal order before the Tribunal and suggested that the petitioner could have requested provisional release during the original proceedings. The petitioner's counsel contended that since no appeal notice was served, the goods should be released. However, the court allowed the petitioner to approach the adjudicating authority for expedited decision on release.

3. The court emphasized the possibility of filing an application for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, especially if the authorities do not contest a second appeal or issue an interim order. This approach aims to prevent loss of perishable goods and balance the interests of the petitioner and revenue. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to file an application for release within a week, with the adjudicating authority required to decide promptly in accordance with the law.