2009 (10) TMI 117 - HC - Customs

Whether an importer, who is alleged to be guilty of mis-declaration of description of goods and under-valuing the invoices, can invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing a writ petition with a prayer that the authorities be directed to reimburse the cost of detention and demurrage charges during the pendency of proceedings before the appropriate authority, which has issued a show-cause-notice for imposing duty, penalty and confiscation of goods, especially when goods have been provisionally released - Suffice it to say, a show cause notice has been served upon the petitioner firm. The firm has got ample opportunity to prove its innocence before the concerned authorities - petitioner firm will not be entitled to take advantage of the wrong committed by it, if it is held that conduct of the petitioner firm is visited by fraud and forgery, by mis-declaration and importing banned substance Writ petition is dismissed - We are satisfied that the Department has taken active steps to reduce the period of testing of the samples and submission of reports, which was a major factor for causing delay in settlement of the dispute. Therefore, no further directions are required to be issued Samples analyzed and test reports submitted in one month as per revenue s submission HC is satisfied with steps taken to reduce period of testing of samples

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court.
2. Delay in the clearance of goods and resulting demurrage charges.
3. Mis-declaration of goods and under-valuation of invoices.
4. Procedural compliance under the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Relief sought for reimbursement of demurrage charges.
6. Validity of provisional release of goods.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The Department raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the goods were imported, bills of entry filed, and clearance sought in Delhi. The Court noted that the petitioner's office falling within its jurisdiction alone does not confer territorial jurisdiction.

2. Delay in the clearance of goods and resulting demurrage charges:
The petitioner argued that despite submitting bills of entry, the goods were not cleared promptly, leading to significant demurrage charges. The Court acknowledged the delay but noted that the petitioner had agreed to pay duty at a higher rate to avoid further demurrage. The Court referenced a directive issued by the Chief Commissioner of Customs for expeditious clearance within three days, highlighting procedural delays and the need for a streamlined process.

3. Mis-declaration of goods and under-valuation of invoices:
The Department investigated the petitioner for allegedly importing Palm Stearin and Crude Palm Oil under the guise of mixed acid oil/mixed fatty acid, which are not freely importable. The petitioner admitted to mis-declaration and under-valuation. The Department's investigation revealed significant duty evasion and mis-declaration in 29 out of 32 containers.

4. Procedural compliance under the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner argued that under Sections 17 and 47 of the Customs Act, the goods should have been examined and assessed without undue delay. The Court noted that the Department had followed due process, including testing samples and issuing a show-cause notice. The Court emphasized the importance of quick decision-making in the exercise of seizure powers to avoid infringing on Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

5. Relief sought for reimbursement of demurrage charges:
The petitioner sought reimbursement of demurrage charges due to the delay in clearance. The Court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Silbans International v. Collector of Customs, held that the writ petition for reimbursement was not maintainable. The petitioner was advised to seek other legal remedies available under the Act.

6. Validity of provisional release of goods:
The goods were provisionally released after the petitioner agreed to pay duty at a higher rate. The Court noted that the petitioner had ample opportunity to contest the show-cause notice and prove its innocence before the concerned authorities. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner could not benefit from its wrongful conduct if found guilty of fraud and forgery.

Additional Observations:
The Court acknowledged the steps taken by the Department to reduce delays in testing samples and clearing goods, including modernization of laboratories and recruitment of staff. The Court expressed satisfaction with the Department's efforts to streamline procedures and reduce testing times.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were dismissed without costs, with the Court reiterating that the petitioner had adequate legal remedies to address its grievances. The Court also permitted the petitioner to apply for the encashment of the bank guarantee furnished during the provisional release of goods.

← Previous Next →