2012 (12) TMI 438 - AT - Customs

Import of plastic films from China mis-declaration - provisional release of the goods Held that - As per provision of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act if Show Cause Notice is not issued within 6 months from the date of seizure, the goods have to be released - adjudicating authority can extend the period by another 6 months by passing an order as envisaged in the said section. Such order extending the period can be passed only after giving an opportunity for hearing to the appellants. The impugned order is not passed under the said provisions. If such order has not been passed the goods have to be released to the appellants in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of goods and seizure under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Request for provisional release of goods and compliance with principles of natural justice.
3. Discrepancy in treatment of different importers by adjudicating authority.
4. Allegations of fraud, non-cooperation, and forged documents.
5. Compliance with Section 110(2) of the Customs Act for release of goods.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported plastic films from China, declaring them as "Plastic Plain Flexible Film" with a declared value. However, customs officers seized the goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, suspecting mis-declaration due to the high insurance value compared to the declared value.

2. The appellant sought provisional release of the goods and moved the High Court for relief. The Commissioner initially refused provisional release, citing non-cooperation with the investigation. The appellant alleged lack of a personal hearing and arbitrary treatment compared to another importer. The Tribunal found the impugned order lacking a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice, and set it aside.

3. The adjudicating authority's different treatment of another importer raised concerns of arbitrariness. The appellant's argument regarding disparate treatment was considered, highlighting the need for consistent application of rules and procedures.

4. The Revenue Authority alleged fraud, non-cooperation, and submission of forged documents by the appellant. The Authority argued that due to the seriousness of the fraud, provisional release was not warranted, citing the C.B.E. & C. manual guidelines. The Tribunal considered these allegations but focused on procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements.

5. The Tribunal emphasized compliance with Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, which mandates the release of goods if a Show Cause Notice is not issued within a specified period. The Tribunal directed adherence to this provision, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and statutory requirements in customs matters.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed issues of mis-declaration, procedural fairness, consistent treatment of importers, fraud allegations, and statutory compliance, emphasizing the significance of natural justice and legal provisions in customs cases.