2015 (12) TMI 1301 - HC - Customs

Detention of goods - Smuggling of goods - Misdeclaration - Confiscation - Imposition of redemption fine - Held that - Admittedly, the representation of the petitioner followed by the reminders have not been considered. The respondents are obligatory under law to take a decision for allowing re-export of the goods on payment of aforesaid fine and penalty. Not having done so, has caused serious prejudice and hardship to the petitioner, despite the order of the first respondent, allowing redemption of the goods under seizure for confiscation for re-export. The petitioner has not received any notice from any higher forum than the first respondent, by which, the order in adjudication passed by the first respondent is under challenge. In the absence of any appeal against the said order of the first respondent, there is no legal impediment for the respondents to act in terms of the order in adjudication dated 14.7.2010 and cause release of the confiscated goods on payment fine and penalty for the purpose of re-export. - There is no denial with regard to the availability of the goods by the customs authorities even after a period of 5 years. The note issued by the Superintendent of Customs dated 21.09.2015 supports the claim of the petitioner. The inaction on the part of the authority is not explained properly in the counter affidavit. In this view also, the continued detention and non-release of the goods at the hands of the respondents cannot be sustained or countenanced - Assessee directed to pay redemption fine - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Writ petition for mandamus to release and permit re-export of seized goods.

Analysis:
The petitioner was intercepted by Air Intelligence Unit carrying precious/semi-precious stones, which were seized and later confiscated under Customs Act 1962. A denova adjudication took place, resulting in an order allowing redemption and re-export of the goods within 45 days on payment of a redemption fine. The petitioner failed to redeem the goods within the stipulated time due to financial constraints.

The petitioner, in 2015, sought to redeem the goods for re-export, stating the stones were still with the authorities. The petitioner argued for redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act due to financial reasons. The petitioner indicated willingness to pay the fine and penalty for re-export, but the communication was not considered by the authorities.

The respondent contended that the petitioner's request, made after 4 1/2 years, was untimely and should be dismissed. However, the court noted that the authorities failed to consider the petitioner's representations and reminders, causing prejudice despite the order allowing redemption for re-export. No legal impediment existed for the authorities to act as per the adjudication order for release on payment of fine and penalty.

The court observed the goods were still available with customs authorities after 5 years, supporting the petitioner's claim. The inaction of the authorities in explaining the continued detention was deemed unsustainable. The court directed the petitioner to pay redemption charges, costs, and penalty within two weeks for redemption and re-export, warning of consequences for any violations post-redemption.

The writ petition was disposed of, mandating the petitioner's compliance within the specified timeframe for redemption and re-export, with a caution against violations post-redemption.