2019 (9) TMI 1039 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of seized goods - Section 110-A of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Revenue Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 undertakes to ensure that respondent No.2 forwards said representation to respondent No.1 forthwith - Respondent No.1 shall consider and pass orders/dispose of the said representation i.e., representation dated 07.08.2019 on its own merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a fortnight from today.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in disposing of representation for provisional release under Section 110-A of Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 07.08.2019 promptly. The representation was regarding provisional release under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned counsel for the petitioner abridged the prayer during the hearing, focusing on expeditious disposal of the said representation.

The representation in question had two addressees, with respondent No.3 being the first addressee and respondent No.2 being the second addressee. The Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3 stated that the representation pertained to provisional release under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, and the decision on the matter should be made by respondents 1 and 2. On the other hand, the Revenue Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 mentioned that due to the consignment's value being over ?2 crores, the request in the representation should be considered by respondent No.1, the Commissioner of Customs.

Considering the urgency due to the potential deterioration of the consignment, the Court decided to pass certain orders. It was directed that respondent No.2 should forward the representation to respondent No.1 promptly. Respondent No.1 was instructed to consider and decide on the representation within a fortnight from the date of the order. The order passed by respondent No.1 should be communicated to the petitioner promptly. The Court clarified that while the prayer was abridged, all contentions in the writ petition remained open, and no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.

Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of with the directions mentioned above, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed accordingly.