2012 (12) TMI 681 - HC - Customs

Seizure of imported automobile parts - appeal for Release the goods - Held that - As decided in Jatin Ahuja (2012 (12) TMI 675 - DELHI HIGH COURT) that the effect of the statute, by virtue of Section 110 would be that on expiration of the total period of one year in the absence of a show cause notice the seized goods have to be released unconditionally. In this case the respondent urged that a show cause notice was in fact issued on 09.08.2012. However, there is no material on record to suggest that the proviso to Section 110(2) was taken recourse to and extension of the seizure order was made before the lapse of six months. In these circumstances and in the absence of any statutory guidelines in regard to the stopping of time, as it were, as alleged by the customs authorities it is not possible to hold that the time taken for adjudication of any issue has to be excluded while reckoning the six months period mandated by Section 110(2). Court is satisfied that the continued seizure by the customs authorities of the petitioner s goods even after the order dated 19.07.2012 is unlawful. The goods so seized shall be released forthwith unconditionally.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with the order in appeal dated 19.07.2012 by the Commissioner of Customs for release of imported automobile parts.
2. Validity of the conditions imposed on provisional release of goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Interpretation of Section 110(2) regarding the return of seized goods in the absence of a show cause notice within the stipulated time frame.

Issue 1: Compliance with Commissioner's Order:
The petitioner sought direction against respondent nos. 2 and 3 to comply with the order in appeal dated 19.07.2012 by the Commissioner of Customs for releasing imported automobile parts seized by customs authorities. The Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned conditions on the provisional release of goods.

Issue 2: Validity of Conditions on Provisional Release:
The petitioner imported automobile parts seized by customs authorities, and requested provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The release was granted subject to conditions not acceptable to the petitioner. The petitioner approached the High Court, which directed the Commissioner to treat the writ petition as an appeal. The Commissioner, in the order dated 19.07.2012, set aside the conditions imposed on provisional release, citing lack of disclosure on undervaluation details and absence of a Show Cause Notice within the stipulated time frame.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 110(2):
The petitioner argued that the time limit under Section 110(2) for issuing a Show Cause Notice expired, entitling unconditional release of goods. The respondents contended that the Show Cause Notice issued after the Commissioner's order should be considered within the specified time frame. The Court emphasized the operation of the proviso to Section 110(2), mandating the return of seized goods in the absence of a timely notice. The Court held that continued seizure of goods after the Commissioner's order was unlawful, directing unconditional release while requiring cooperation with the ongoing enquiry.

This judgment addressed issues regarding compliance with the Commissioner's order for releasing seized goods, the validity of conditions on provisional release under Section 110A, and the interpretation of Section 110(2) concerning the return of goods in the absence of a Show Cause Notice within the prescribed time frame. The Court emphasized statutory provisions, previous judgments, and the operation of the proviso to Section 110(2) to determine the entitlement to unconditional release of goods. Ultimately, the Court ordered the unconditional release of seized goods, declaring the continued seizure as unlawful and directing cooperation with the ongoing enquiry.