2012 (12) TMI 803 - SC - Customs

Detention on goods on account of alleged hazardous qualities - demanding Release of seized 96.74 Metric Tonnes of Copper Concentrate as could be processed and disposed of in accordance with the Hazardous Wastes (Maintenance and Handling) Rules, 1989 - Held that - In the guidelines for expeditious clearance/provisional release under Customs Manual paragraph 2.2. (c) it has been written for dispute case pending investigation wherever importer or exporter is willing, he should be allowed provisional clearance of the goods by furnishing a bond for full value of the goods supported by adequate bank guarantee as may be determined by the proper officer. The value of bank guarantee shall not exceed twice the amdunt of duty. The provisional clearance should be allowed as a rule and not as an exception As respondents submits that they undertake to abide by the said provisions I.A. is disposed of with a direction upon the appellant, Customs Authorities, to release the goods in question to the respondents, subject to compliance with the provisions of Chapter 15 of the Customs Manual, 2011.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of goods by Customs Authorities on account of alleged hazardous qualities.
2. Appeal to the Tribunal challenging the detention of goods.
3. Provision for provisional release of goods as per Customs Manual guidelines.
4. Compliance with provisions of Chapter 15 of the Customs Manual, 2011 for release of goods.

The judgment pertains to an application filed in Civil Appeal No. 5720 OF 2008, seeking direction for the release of seized 96.74 Metric Tonnes of Copper Concentrate detained by the Customs Authorities due to alleged hazardous qualities. The Tribunal ruled in favor of releasing the goods as Copper Concentrate. During the consideration of the application, the Customs Manual guidelines were highlighted, specifically paragraph 2.2.(c) allowing for provisional clearance of goods in dispute cases pending investigation. The provision outlines conditions for provisional release, including the requirement of a bond for the full value of goods supported by a bank guarantee not exceeding twice the amount of duty. It emphasizes that provisional release should be the rule, except in specific cases like goods prohibited for import/export or involving gross fraudulent practices that could jeopardize further investigations and revenue interests. The respondents expressed willingness to comply with these provisions for the clearance of the goods.

The Court, taking into account the submissions and provisions of the Customs Manual, directed the Customs Authorities to release the goods to the respondents, subject to adherence to Chapter 15 of the Customs Manual, 2011. The representatives of the respondents were granted liberty to appear before the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, on a specified date for implementation of the release order. The judgment underscores the importance of following procedural guidelines and compliance with relevant regulations for the release of detained goods, ensuring a balance between investigation requirements and the rights of the parties involved.