2023 (9) TMI 1297 - HC - Customs

Seeking provisional release of the seized goods - mismatch in the disclosure made by the supplier as well as by the importer, the petitioner herein - Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petitioner s representation seeking for provisional release of the seized goods is considered by the respondents, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. This Court is of the considered view that six weeks time will suffice for the respondents to pass final orders on the petitioner s representation seeking for provisional release of seized goods. These writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents to pass final orders on the petitioner s representation dated 23-11-2022 seeking for provisional release of the seized goods as per the provisions of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, on merits and in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of imported goods by customs authorities due to mismatch in disclosure.
2. Petitioner seeking provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Delay in considering petitioner's representation by the respondents.
4. Court's direction for timely consideration of the representation.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner's goods were seized by customs authorities on the grounds of a disclosure mismatch between the supplier and the importer. The matter is under investigation, and the petitioner sought provisional release of the goods through a representation under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, which had not been considered by the respondents, leading to the filing of writ petitions.

2. The court heard arguments from both parties' counsels. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, stated that the seized goods are being investigated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), and they are awaiting a report from the DRI before considering the request for provisional release made by the petitioner.

3. The court opined that considering the petitioner's representation for provisional release would not cause any prejudice to the respondents. It directed the respondents to evaluate the representation on its merits and in accordance with the law within a stipulated time frame set by the court, which was determined to be six weeks.

4. The court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's contentions, leaving it to the respondents to decide based on the law. The writ petitions were disposed of with a directive for the respondents to pass final orders on the petitioner's representation for provisional release within six weeks from the receipt of the court's order, emphasizing compliance with Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, and without imposing any costs.