2023 (2) TMI 77 - HC - Customs

Seeking for provisional release of the imported goods - Import of Supari from Thailand - prohibited goods or not - Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - As seen from section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, an independent decision will have to be taken by the Customs Authorities with regard to the request made by any importer seeking for provisional release of the detained goods which has been detained under section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 as in the present case. Whether the petitioner has responded to the Show Cause Notice issued by the Customs Authorities or not is immaterial for the purpose of deciding the application seeking for provisional release of the detained goods under section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962. As seen from Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, pending the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the goods may be provisionally released to the owner or the bank holder on taking a bond from him in a proper form with such security and conditions as the Adjudicating Authority may require. Thus, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner is allowed to submit an application under section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking for provisional release of the detained goods and a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the said application on merits and in accordance with law, in the light of the contentions raised by the petitioner in these writ petitions within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. This Court directs the petitioner to submit an application to the second respondent under section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, seeking for provisional release of the goods in respect of the stated Bills of Entries - petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Provisional release of imported goods under specific Bills of Entries.
2. Classification of imported Supari as prohibited or non-prohibited goods.
3. Interpretation of Advance Rulings related to the classification of Supari.
4. Submission of reports from testing laboratories.
5. Respondent's contention on the classification of Supari under Customs Tariff Act.
6. Legal provisions under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 for provisional release.
7. Reference to the decision of Cestat and the Supreme Court.
8. Court's direction for submitting an application under Section 110-A for provisional release.
9. Timeframe for the final decision on the application.

Analysis:

1. The writ petitions were filed to seek provisional release of imported goods specified in Bills of Entries. The petitioner imported Supari from Thailand, which the respondents claimed as prohibited goods while the petitioner argued otherwise based on Advance Rulings.

2. The key issue revolved around the classification of Supari as prohibited or non-prohibited goods. The petitioner contended that Supari falls under Chapter 21 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, citing relevant Advance Rulings supporting their claim.

3. The interpretation of Advance Rulings played a crucial role in the case. The petitioner relied on specific rulings to assert that Supari does not contain prohibited ingredients and should be classified under Chapter 21, thereby not being prohibited for import.

4. Following a court order, testing laboratories submitted reports favoring the petitioner's claim that the imported Supari only consisted of small cut pieces of Areca Nuts/Betel Nuts, commonly known as Supari.

5. The respondents argued that the Supari imported by the petitioner should be classified under Chapter 8 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, making it prohibited goods. They also highlighted the lack of a proper response from the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice issued by Customs Authorities.

6. The legal provisions under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 were crucial in determining the provisional release of detained goods pending adjudication. The court emphasized the importance of an independent decision by Customs Authorities in such cases.

7. Reference was made to a decision by Cestat, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, and the subsequent confirmation by the Supreme Court, supporting the respondent's argument on the classification of the imported goods.

8. The court directed the petitioner to submit an application under Section 110-A for provisional release of the detained goods, emphasizing the need for a proper review of the application by the respondents within a specified timeframe.

9. A detailed directive was provided for the final decision on the application, including considerations of Advance Rulings, testing reports, and previous court orders, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation before reaching a final verdict.

This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues, arguments presented, legal interpretations, and the court's directives in the judgment.

← Previous Next →