2022 (11) TMI 570 - HC - Customs

Seeking provisional release of seized goods - Betel Nut product known as Supari (unflavoured supari) of Myanmar Origin - prohibited item for import under DGFT Notification No.20/2015-2020 dated 25.07.2018, or not - HELD THAT - On a perusal of the Notification No.20/2015-2020, dated 25.07.2018, it appears that if the declared import value is less than Rs. 251/- per kilogram, the import of Arecanut is prohibited and thus, the Adjudicating Authority after taking note of the aforesaid notification comprehensively, has issued a show cause notice No.88/2022, dated 05.08.2022 to the appellants / respondents 1 and 2. The appellants/ respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the applications of the first respondent / writ petitioner in all the cases for provisional release under Section 110-A of the Customs Act and the same shall be disposed of by the Adjudicating Authority on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Release of seized goods misdeclared in import documents.
2. Interpretation of Customs Tariff heading and country of origin.
3. Legal validity of seizure under Customs Act.
4. Application of Foreign Trade Act provisions.
5. Provisional release of goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act.

Issue 1: Release of Seized Goods Misdeclared in Import Documents
The writ petitions were filed seeking the release of Betel Nut products misdeclared as Supari from Myanmar. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence found the goods misclassified as Areca nuts, a prohibited item for import. The goods were seized under the Customs Act, but the Writ Court allowed the petitions. The appellants argued that the release was erroneous due to misdeclaration.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Customs Tariff Heading and Country of Origin
The Senior Standing Counsel contended that the imported goods were misdeclared and misclassified in the import documents. The goods were Areca nuts instead of Betel Nut products as declared. The value declared was below the threshold set by DGFT, making it prohibited for import. The goods were seized under the Customs Act based on these discrepancies.

Issue 3: Legal Validity of Seizure under Customs Act
The writ petitioner cited previous court orders directing the release of seized goods pending adjudication. Referring to relevant judgments, the court emphasized the distinction between prohibited and restricted goods under the Foreign Trade Act. The court directed the adjudicating authority to consider the applications for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act.

Issue 4: Application of Foreign Trade Act Provisions
The court analyzed Notification No.20/2015-2020, which prohibits the import of Arecanut below a specified value. The court directed the adjudicating authority to issue a show cause notice based on this notification and previous court decisions. The court upheld the writ petitions, citing the notification and previous judgments.

Issue 5: Provisional Release of Goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act
After hearing arguments from both sides and considering relevant judgments, the court directed the appellants to consider the applications for provisional release of goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority was instructed to dispose of the applications within one week from the date of the judgment.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ appeals, providing directions for the consideration of provisional release applications within a specified timeframe. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal provisions and previous court decisions in matters concerning the misdeclaration and seizure of imported goods.