2022 (9) TMI 1075 - HC - Customs

Seeking provisional release and re-export of the goods - seizure on the ground of non-observance of conditions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 read with Food Safety Standard Rules, 2011 as well as the Food Safety and Standard (Import) Regulation, 2017 and other applicable FSSAI norms - Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - While the petitioner has prayed for direction against the respondent no.3 to order provisional release and permit re-export of the goods seized under the seizure memo in question dated 13.4.2022, on admitted facts, the court found the part of the prayer relating to permission to re-export of the goods to the petitioner, could hardly be granted inasmuch as the goods were already transported away from the Mundra Port and came to be intercepted admittedly at a place near Sanand and thereafter, the authorities have kept the goods in a warehouse near Ahmedabad. Nothing is expressed about petitioner s claim for re-export. The petitioner may take legal recourse in this regard by approaching authorities, as may be available and permissible under the law. Prayer for provisional release of the seized goods - HELD THAT - The provisional release is granted in terms of section 110A of the Customs Act. In this regard, it is to be noticed from the contents of the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.3 Customs that the petitioner has already made applications in form of letters dated 4.6.2022 and 1.7.22 seeking provisional release of the goods. The affidavit-in-reply in para 8.9 inter alia mentions that while seeking provisional release, the petitioner has expressed its inability to give bank guarantee as required for safeguarding the interest of the Customs. It would be a proper course if the letters-cum-applications of the petitioner pending with the authorities seeking provisional release of the goods are decided by the authorities in exercise of powers under section 110A of the Act. It will be for the competent Customs authorities to take a proper decision about the provisional release imposing conditions for such release as may be deemed fit by the authorities - When the applications seeking provisional release are pending before the authorities, it is entirely for the authorities to consider the same and to further assess the requirements of the nature of the security to be obtained for the provisional release. The competent authority of the Customs department shall consider the pending applications/letters containing the prayer of the petitioner for provisional release of the goods by imposing appropriate conditions within a period of one week from today - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Controversy over the seizure and provisional release of goods including Instant Coffee Nescafe, Chewing Gum Trident, Samyang Mix Noodles, and various other food items under the Customs Act, 1962 and Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Analysis:
1. Seizure and Grounds for Confiscation: The petitioner's goods, transported in a truck, were intercepted by Customs authorities due to alleged non-compliance with Food Safety Act and related regulations. The authorities seized the goods valuing them at Rs. 1,48,67,363 and the vehicle at Rs. 21,71,250. The seizure memo outlined the grounds for confiscation under the Customs Act, treating them as liable to be confiscated under relevant sections.

2. Provisional Release and Re-export: The petitioner sought a direction to order provisional release and re-export of the seized goods. While the court acknowledged the petitioner's plea for provisional release under section 110A of the Customs Act, it noted the goods were already transported and intercepted, making re-export challenging. The court advised the petitioner to pursue legal recourse for re-export through permissible means.

3. Petitioner's Application for Release: The respondent confirmed the petitioner's applications for provisional release but highlighted the petitioner's inability to provide a bank guarantee for Customs' interest safeguarding. The court referenced a previous case but emphasized the present matter's serious breaches related to food safety standards, distinguishing it from the precedent case where release was granted based on different grounds.

4. Judicial Direction: The court directed the competent Customs authority to decide on the pending applications for provisional release within a week, imposing suitable conditions as deemed necessary. The court refrained from expressing an opinion on the case's merits or the specific conditions to be imposed, leaving it to the authorities' discretion.

5. Conclusion: The petition was disposed of with the directive for the Customs department to review the petitioner's requests promptly. The judgment emphasized the authorities' power to decide on provisional release conditions based on the circumstances, ensuring a fair and lawful process for the resolution of the dispute.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the legal intricacies and procedural aspects of the judgment, outlining the key issues, arguments, and the court's decision in a comprehensive manner.