2022 (9) TMI 1305 - HC - Customs

Seeking provisional release and re-export of seized goods - goods seized 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 and other safeguarding conditions - 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 is noticed that the decision of this court in Zip Zap Exim (P) Ltd. 2020 (2) TMI 1239 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT was based on different facts including on the ground of value of the goods, whereas the present controversy involves allegation of serious breaches on the part of the petitioner regarding non-compliance of the Food Safety Standards. Furthermore, there is no gainsaying that under section 110A of the Customs Act, the authorities are empowered to consider the question of release and put appropriate conditions for such release. Therefore, the judgment relied on by learned advocate for the petitioner, which stands true on its own facts, could not be applied in the present case. Thus, 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 - 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 goods seizure and provisional release.

Analysis:
1. Seizure of Goods:
- The petitioner's goods, including various food items like Instant Coffee, Chewing Gum, and Chocolate Bars, were seized by Customs authorities during transportation from Mundra Port to Mumbai.
- The seizure was based on non-compliance with Food Safety and Standards Act, Food Safety Standard Rules, and Import Regulations, valuing the goods at Rs. 1,44,72,392/- and the vehicle at Rs. 19,58,900/-.
- The authorities invoked Customs Act sections 110(1), 111, and 115, treating the goods as liable for confiscation due to alleged breaches of food safety norms.

2. Prayer for Provisional Release:
- The petitioner sought a direction for the immediate release and re-export of the seized goods.
- Section 110A of the Customs Act allows provisional release pending adjudication, subject to the adjudicating authority's conditions and security requirements.
- The petitioner applied for provisional release but expressed inability to provide the necessary bank guarantee for Customs' interest safeguarding.

3. Court's Decision:
- The court declined to grant permission for re-export as the goods were already intercepted and stored near Ahmedabad.
- Emphasized that the petitioner can pursue legal recourse for re-export through appropriate channels.
- Acknowledged the petitioner's applications for provisional release but noted the absence of a bank guarantee.
- Rejected the petitioner's reliance on a previous court decision due to differing circumstances and serious non-compliance allegations.
- Directed Customs authorities to decide on the pending applications for provisional release within one week, imposing suitable conditions as deemed necessary.
- Reserved judgment on the merits of the case and the specific conditions for provisional release.

4. Conclusion:
- The petition was disposed of, permitting direct service.
- Customs authorities instructed to review the petitioner's applications for provisional release promptly and determine appropriate conditions.
- The court refrained from expressing opinions on the case's merits or the specific conditions to be imposed, leaving it to the competent Customs authority's discretion.