2018 (12) TMI 446 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of the seized goods - Section 110A of the Customs Act 1962 - Prohibited goods or not? - Clear ownership - actual importers (identified by DRI during investigation) did not have IEC Code No. - Held that - It is to be noted that the investigations in the present case have already been concluded by the DRI as evidenced by issue of show cause notice dated 03.09.2018 in which the seized goods have been proposed for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act 1962. The findings of the lower authority that the goods were prohibited goods is set aside - also the warehousing of the goods has already been allowed; hence the seized goods will not incur demurrage. Further the show cause notice has already been issued. In these circumstances the lower authority is directed to complete the adjudication of the case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which he should pass order under Section 110A ibid for provisional release of the goods as permissible under law - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of request for provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the Orders dated 15.06.2018 by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata concerning certain imported goods. The DRI investigation revealed undeclared goods in addition to those declared in the Bills of Entry. The importers approached the High Court, which directed the Customs Authorities to consider the request for provisional release. However, the Commissioner denied the release, stating the goods were prohibited as the actual importers lacked a valid IEC Code under the Foreign Trade Act.

2. The appellant's main arguments focused on the definition of "Importer" under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, advocating for the release in favor of the alleged real importer. They cited Tribunal decisions and High Court judgments supporting provisional release in similar cases. The appellant also contested the high valuation of goods by Customs Authorities, arguing for valuation based on NIDB data.

3. The Department justified the Commissioner's orders, emphasizing that the importers who filed Bills of Entry were IEC code holders, and the seized goods were considered prohibited. They highlighted that the valuation was based on market prices due to discrepancies in attached invoices.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the rejection of provisional release, noting the Commissioner's view that the goods were prohibited due to the lack of clear ownership and valid IEC Codes. The Tribunal referred to its previous order and High Court judgments, directing the lower authority to complete adjudication within two months or provisionally release the goods as permissible under law, considering the concluded investigation and show cause notice issued.

5. The Tribunal set aside the lower authority's findings on the goods being prohibited, considering the concluded investigations and allowing warehousing without demurrage. It directed completion of adjudication within two months or provisional release under Section 110A if adjudication is not completed, instructing the appellants to cooperate without unnecessary adjournments.

6. The appeals were disposed of based on the above analysis, with the direction to complete adjudication or provisionally release the goods within the specified timeline, ensuring compliance without undue delays.