9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 349 - HC - CustomsSeeking unconditional release of imported goods - Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Import of LED Spare Parts for lighting fixtures, Spare Parts for lighting fixtures and Capacitor for lighting fixtures from China - Detention of goods - Non-issuance of SCN to the petitioner till this date rather it should have been issued within six months from 15.04.2015 (i.e.) on or before 15.10.2015 as per Section 124(a). Held that - when no action is initiated by way of issuance of show cause notice under Section 124(a) of the Act within six months or extended period stipulated under Section 110(2) of the Act, the person from whose possession the goods were seized, becomes entitled to their return. The remedy of provisional release is independent of remedy of claiming unconditional release in the absence of issuance of any valid show cause notice during the period of limitation or extended limitation prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act. Therefore, merely because a request has been made for provisional release of goods under Section 110-A of the Customs Act and the same has been acceded to by the respondent, the same would not take away the right of the petitioner for unconditional release of the goods under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. The right under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act is absolute and cannot be curtailed or prevented by the Department. That apart, the Circular issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 19.02.2013 also supports the case of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get release of the goods unconditionally. - Decided in favour of petitioner
Issues Involved:
1. Provisional release of imported goods under Section 110-A of the Customs Act. 2. Issuance of show cause notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act. 3. Unconditional release of goods under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. 4. Compliance with judicial pronouncements and departmental circulars. Detailed Analysis: 1. Provisional Release of Imported Goods: The petitioner sought provisional release of imported LED Spare Parts and Capacitors under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, due to potential spoilage. The respondents initially agreed to provisional release on the condition of executing a bond for the full value of the goods and a bank guarantee for 110% of the estimated duty evasion amount. The petitioner contested this, arguing that judicial pronouncements indicated that the differential duty payable should be between 30% to 50% of the differential duty, not 110%. 2. Issuance of Show Cause Notice: The petitioner argued that under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, the respondents were required to issue a show cause notice within six months from the date of seizure (15.04.2015). The petitioner claimed that no such notice was issued by the deadline (15.10.2015), nor was the period extended by the Commissioner of Customs. The respondents contended that the goods were not seized but stored under Section 49 of the Customs Act, thus negating the six-month time limit for issuing a show cause notice. 3. Unconditional Release of Goods: The petitioner contended that under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, if no show cause notice is issued within six months (or extended period), the goods must be unconditionally released. The petitioner argued that the provisional release under Section 110-A does not negate the right to unconditional release under Section 110(2). The respondents' stance that there was no seizure at all was rejected by the court, as provisional release under Section 110-A implies a prior seizure. 4. Compliance with Judicial Pronouncements and Departmental Circulars: The petitioner cited several judgments supporting their claim for unconditional release due to the non-issuance of a show cause notice within the stipulated period: - Kore Koncepts Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Customs (SIIB): The Delhi High Court held that failure to issue a show cause notice within the stipulated period results in the unconditional release of goods. - Jatin Ahuja Vs. Union of India: The Delhi High Court emphasized that the statutory dissolution of the seizure order occurs if a show cause notice is not issued within the prescribed time. - Rama Overseas Vs. Union of India: The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that the petitioner could not be denied the right to possess goods due to the inefficiency of the Revenue. - Akanksha Syntex (P) Limited Vs. Union of India: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that provisional release does not negate the right to unconditional release if no show cause notice is issued within the prescribed period. The petitioner also referenced a circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, which aligned with the judicial pronouncements, stating that provisional release does not override the provisions of Section 110(2). Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the unconditional release of the goods as the respondents failed to issue a show cause notice within the stipulated period. The court directed the respondents to release the imported goods within one week from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petition was allowed, and the associated miscellaneous petitions were disposed of accordingly.
|
