2012 (10) TMI 591 - HC - Customs

Release of consignments imported - alleged that there were discrepancies between the declaration and the inspection report with regard to the description of certain goods - whether consignments imported can be detained indefinitely without even passing any seizure order Held that - Provisional release would arise when there was seizure in accordance with law. There was no seizure in this case - goods imported cannot indefinitely be detained. Necessary action would have to be initiated and expeditiously concluded - respondent authorities are entitled to investigate and ascertain whether the price declaration has correctly been made or whether the goods have been undervalued with ulterior motive. However, such investigation would necessarily have to be concluded with utmost expedition. Apparently this has not been done in the instant case - writ application is, thus, disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to conclude the investigation/proceedings

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of imported consignments without seizure order.
2. Discrepancies between declaration and inspection report.
3. Delay in concluding investigation by respondent authorities.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought release of three imported consignments and interim warehousing orders under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods were detained by the Directorate of Revenue (Intelligence) without passing any seizure order, leading to heavy demurrage charges accruing daily. The petitioner argued that goods cannot be detained indefinitely, citing legal precedents from Punjab & Haryana High Court and Bombay High Court regarding the urgency in releasing detained goods and the importance of providing a "Panchnama" to the concerned party.

2. The respondent authorities highlighted discrepancies between the declaration and inspection report of the goods, alleging undervaluation with ulterior motives. They argued that certain items were not declared in the Bill of Lading, indicating a need for investigation. However, the court emphasized that while authorities are entitled to investigate such discrepancies, the process must be expedited. The court noted that almost six months had passed since the arrival of the goods, and the investigation had not been concluded promptly.

3. The court concluded that imported goods cannot be detained indefinitely and directed the respondent authorities to conclude the investigation within three weeks and release the goods. If the investigation cannot be completed for reasons not attributable to the petitioner, the goods must be released promptly. The judgment emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of such cases to prevent undue delays and ensure fairness to the parties involved.