2019 (7) TMI 688 - HC - Customs

Cancellation of the export shipments - delay in filing shipping bills - provisional release of goods - HELD THAT - The impugned order dated 4th December, 2018 allowing provisional release of the said goods was under Section 18. It is not correct to state that such provisional assessment of the shipping bill can only be done consequent to a seizure of the said goods under Section 110 of the Act. The impugned order dated 4th December, 2010 is not one made under Section 110A of the Act as submitted by the petitioner but it is an order of provisional assessment of the shipping bill dated 23rd August, 2018. However, the impugned order dated 4th December, 2018 stands superseded / abandoned by the Revenue in view of the seizure of the said goods by order dated 15th April, 2019 under Section 110 of the Act. Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel for the Revenue states that the investigations are in progress and it would not be possible for them to expedite the issue of show-cause-notice. The investigation itself may take a long time before a show-cause notice can be issued. However, in the meanwhile, it is submitted by the Revenue that the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava-Sheva (the Adjudicating Authority) would consider the petitioner's request for provisional release of the said goods under Section 110A of the Act - Mr. Jetly, on instructions, states that the order on provisional release of the said goods under Section 110A of the Act will be passed within a period of three weeks from today. This statement is accepted. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to communication for provisional release of export shipment and seizure memo for glass beads meant for export under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a communication dated 4th December, 2018, allowing the provisional release of glass beads meant for export and a seizure memo dated 15th April, 2019, under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner argued that the delay in assessing the goods could lead to the cancellation of export shipments. The High Court noted that the provisional release was made under Section 18 and not necessarily after a seizure under Section 110. The court found the order dated 4th December, 2018, allowing provisional assessment, was superseded by the seizure order dated 15th April, 2019. Consequently, the court set aside the order for provisional assessment.

The Revenue informed the court that investigations were ongoing, making it challenging to expedite the issuance of a show-cause notice. The Revenue proposed that the Adjudicating Authority would consider the petitioner's request for provisional release under Section 110A after hearing the petitioner. The court accepted this submission, ensuring the petitioner's concerns were addressed while protecting the Revenue's interests.

The petitioner's counsel agreed to attend the hearing for provisional release under Section 110A without any conditions. The Revenue assured that the order for provisional release would be passed within three weeks from the date of the court hearing. Based on these submissions, the petition was disposed of accordingly.