9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 306 - HC - CustomsSeizure of imported TVs - LED TV or not valuation and misdeclaration no exemption re-examination of goods provisional release of goods Held that - within a period of two weeks, and in the presence of a representative of the Petitioner and one representative each of the DRI and the Customs, a re-examination will take place of the seized goods which are in the custody of the Petitioner on superdari. A detailed inventory will be drawn up. The cost of engaging additional help for the purposes of preparing the inventory will be borne by the Petitioner. The inventory so drawn up will form part of the adjudication record and can be relied upon by the Petitioner as well as the DRI and the Customs in the adjudication proceedings writ petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Provisional release of seized goods. 2. Supply of Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) for adjudication. 3. Re-examination of seized goods. Detailed Analysis: 1. Provisional Release of Seized Goods: The petitioner sought provisional release of goods seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). Initially, the Principal Commissioner of Customs imposed conditions for provisional release, including payment of 100% of the differential duty, execution of a bond equivalent to 100% of the value of the seized goods, and furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to 30% of the differential duty. The petitioner challenged these conditions in WP (C) No. 1775/2016. The court, in its order dated 29th February 2016, did not modify the conditions due to the serious dispute regarding the genuineness of documents produced by the petitioner. However, the court directed the Principal Commissioner (Adjudication) to conclude the adjudication proceedings within four months. 2. Supply of Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) for Adjudication: The petitioner claimed that the annexure-AA to the Show Cause Notice (SCN), which lists the Relied Upon Documents (RUDs), was not supplied. Initially, only 19 RUDs were referred to in the SCN, but Annexure-AA listed 31 RUDs. The petitioner repeatedly requested the complete set of RUDs, which were finally supplied only on 17th June 2016. The court noted that the complete set of 31 RUDs was handed over to the petitioner in court. Given this delay, the court extended the time for completing the adjudication proceedings by two months from the date of the order. 3. Re-examination of Seized Goods: The petitioner also sought re-examination of the seized goods, which was initially rejected by the DRI. The court observed that the re-examination request was not given up and noted that the context of re-examination in this case was different from the context in the cited Supreme Court order related to narcotics. The court directed that a re-examination of the seized goods should take place within two weeks, in the presence of representatives from the petitioner, DRI, and Customs. A detailed inventory would be drawn up, and the cost of engaging additional help for preparing the inventory would be borne by the petitioner. This re-examination was to ensure that the goods remained intact as per the undertaking given by the petitioner. Conclusion: The court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: - The complete set of 31 RUDs was to be provided to the petitioner. - The adjudication proceedings were to be completed within two months. - A re-examination of the seized goods was to be conducted within two weeks, with a detailed inventory to be prepared and included in the adjudication record. These directions were issued without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the adjudication proceedings and did not modify the earlier order of provisional release.
|
