2019 (6) TMI 1162 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of goods - import of old and used digital multifunctional devices - prohibited item or not - Section 110 of Customs Act - HELD THAT - The matter is remitted to the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Gateway Rail Freight Link, Sahnewal, Ludhiana i.e. respondent No. 3 to pass a fresh order in respect of provisional release of the goods after affording an opportunity of hearing to the authorised representative of the petitioner-Firm and by passing a speaking order in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Provisional release of goods under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
3. Compliance with Foreign Trade Policy and BIS Certification requirements.
4. Interpretation of Supreme Court order regarding deposit bond and redemption of goods.
5. Legality of rejecting provisional release request before Supreme Court judgment.

Analysis:

The writ petition was filed seeking the provisional release of goods under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the rejection of the request by the respondent. The petitioner, engaged in importing multifunctional devices, imported a consignment of old and used digital devices, but faced issues regarding compliance with Foreign Trade Policy and BIS Certification requirements. The petitioner requested provisional release, which was denied, leading to the seizure of goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The rejection of the release request was based on non-compliance with import regulations.

The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court order directing deposit bond without sureties for the release of goods pending confiscation decisions. The respondents argued that the petitioner's goods import violated Foreign Trade Policy provisions and lacked mandatory BIS Certification. The Commissioner of Customs clarified the Supreme Court's order in a related case, emphasizing the rejection of the petitioner's release request predated the Supreme Court judgment.

After considering arguments and communications, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order rejecting provisional release. The matter was remitted to the Joint Commissioner of Customs for a fresh decision, emphasizing a fair hearing and a lawful, reasoned order within fifteen days. The Court's decision aimed to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements in determining the provisional release of goods.