2017 (7) TMI 275 - HC - Customs

Mis-declaration of goods - provisional release - grievance of the Petitioner is that the conditions are too harsh; that mis-declaration was found only to a small extent in 4 of the 5 B/Es; that the procedure that ought to have been followed for effecting seizure was not followed; that the seizure actually did not take place in the presence of the importer but purportedly in the presence of its CHA which is also disputed by the Petitioner - Held that - what is required to be examined in the instant case is whether the conditions imposed by the Respondent in the impugned order of provisional release of the imported consignments in favor of the Petitioner requires any interference by this Court. The Court is not persuaded to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the conditions imposed in the impugned order are harsh or unreasonable or arbitrary so as to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order for provisional release of imported goods with conditions.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company engaged in importing electronic items, challenged an order for the provisional release of goods imported under five Bills of Entry (B/E) by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner raised concerns about the conditions imposed for release, including depositing 100% of the differential Customs duty, furnishing a bond equivalent to the re-determined value of the goods, providing a bank guarantee for 15% of the duty, and an undertaking not to contest the goods' identity, quantity, and description. The petitioner argued that the conditions were harsh, especially since misdeclaration was found only in a small portion of the consignments. The petitioner sought to modify the conditions based on previous court orders. The respondent highlighted misdescriptions, misdeclarations, and attempts to import prohibited goods, emphasizing the need to protect revenue interests. The respondent contended that the conditions were justified given the circumstances and the appealable nature of the order.

The court discussed the legal distinction between provisional release of goods and provisional assessments, citing relevant case law. It emphasized that each case must be examined based on its facts and the exercise of discretion under Section 110 A of the Act. The court clarified that the discretion must be fair, reasonable, and based on relevant materials, cautioning against treating all wrongful imports equally. The court noted that the conditions imposed in the impugned order were not arbitrary or unreasonable, considering the misdeclarations and prohibited goods involved. The court found no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, dismissing the petition and canceling the next hearing date.

In conclusion, the court upheld the conditions for provisional release of the imported goods, rejecting the petitioner's challenge. The judgment emphasized the importance of discretion in such cases, ensuring fairness and reasonableness in imposing conditions for release based on the specific circumstances of each case.