2023 (8) TMI 753 - HC - Customs

Seeking implementation of order regarding release of goods - case of respondents is that the letter which has been filed by the petitioner with the respondents on 18.07.2022, merely asks for waiver of demurrage/storage charges and not for the release of goods - HELD THAT - The petitioner's representation dated 18.07.2022 is only for waiver of demurrage/storage charges vide issuing necessary detention certificate in terms of Regulation 6(l) of the Handling of Cargos in Cargos in Customs Area Regulations, 2009, regarding the Bill of Entry No.4281619 dated 11.06.2021, which is now stationed at Chandra CFS, Chennai - As far as the implementation of CESTAT order is concerned, the petitioner has to elect either the re-export the goods or opt for destruction of 26 kids bikes. Without the petitioner electing, the respondents cannot comply with the CESTAT'S Order. This writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to give an appropriate representation to the second respondent within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent shall dispose both the representations on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondent to implement the order of the CESTAT Final Order No.40262/2022 in Customs Appeal No.40021/2022.

Summary:
The Tribunal held that the order for confiscation and re-export of 26 kids bikes did not require interference, as the goods had undergone quality assurance testing by NABL before the original export to the USA. The order of confiscation and re-export for 157 bikes was set aside, with a redemption fine imposed. The penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 was also reduced. The petitioner paid the nominal duty imposed, inclusive of fine and penalty. Despite the order being passed, it was not implemented, leading to the petitioner's representation for release of goods.

The respondents argued that the petitioner's letter only requested waiver of demurrage/storage charges, not the release of goods. They contended that the petitioner must elect either the re-export or destruction of 26 bikes as per the CESTAT order for implementation. The court considered both parties' arguments and examined the CESTAT order, petitioner's representation, and the respondents' counter.

The court noted that the petitioner's representation was solely for waiver of demurrage/storage charges, not for implementing the CESTAT order. It emphasized that the petitioner must elect either re-export or destruction of the bikes for the order's compliance. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit a suitable representation to the second respondent within two weeks for further action. The second respondent was instructed to address both representations within four weeks and also handle the petitioner's request for waiver of charges. The writ petition was disposed of with the specified directions and without costs.