2019 (6) TMI 648 - HC - Customs

Release of Consignment - import of peas - restriction imposed by N/N. 4/2015-2020 dated 25.04.2018 - HELD THAT - It is seen that the the petitioner entered into a contract on 05.10.2017 itself. It is stated that the payment was made on 15.11.2017 itself. As per the restrictions imposed by the notification, the petitioner has reduced the quantity to 7,000 Metric tonnes which is below the specified quantity. It is stated that the dun peas are not cultivated in India. The bills of lading is prior to the date of 01.04.2018 to 30.06.2018 which was extended till 31.12.2018 vide notification No.37/2015-2020 dated 28.09.2019, thereby continuing the restriction between 01.10.2018 and 31.12.2018. The bill of lading is on 06.10.2018 which is within the extended period. The consumer goods are perishable and if the shipment is not released, the food materials will go as a waste. This Court deems it fit to pass an order to release the shipment on the condition that the petitioner will remit the entire duty component of the consignments imported by them in cases were such duty is leviable - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Release of consignment of peas imported by the petitioner
2. Interpretation of import policy restrictions by Directorate of Foreign Trade
3. Applicability of court orders on release of consignments
4. Compliance with duty liabilities for imported goods

Analysis:
1. The writ petition sought the release of imported peas consignment based on court orders in similar cases. The petitioner imported dun peas, not cultivated in India, under a contract made before the import policy restrictions were imposed. The petitioner reduced the quantity of import in compliance with advance payment terms. The court previously ordered release of consignments with bill of lading between specific dates, emphasizing no release after 01.01.2019.

2. The petitioner's case relied on judgments regarding the stay of relevant notifications and the liability to duty for imported goods. The court considered the balance of convenience and the stay of notifications at the time of import. The judgments highlighted the conditions for release of consignments based on the contractual terms and compliance with import regulations.

3. The court referenced judgments in similar cases to support the petitioner's claim for consignment release. The court acknowledged challenges to the import policy notifications and the implications of stays granted by other High Courts. The court directed release of the consignment of yellow peas/green peas based on specific bill of entries and compliance with duty liabilities.

4. The respondents argued against consignment release post the vacation of stay on the notification. They emphasized the notification's purpose to benefit local farmers and the DGFT's authority to withhold consignments. The court considered the perishable nature of the goods and the petitioner's compliance with reduced quantity and advance payment terms. The court ordered release of the consignment upon fulfilling duty obligations and providing bank guarantees.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition for consignment release under specified conditions, emphasizing duty compliance and bank guarantees. The judgment considered the contractual terms, import policy restrictions, and the balance of convenience while ensuring no waiver of demurrage charges.