2020 (2) TMI 528 - HC - Customs

Detention of goods - over-valuation of goods - petitioner has also preferred an application for provisional release of the goods - HELD THAT - Supreme Court has in its recent decision in THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ORS. VERSUS M/S KAY PAN FRAGRANCE PVT. LTD. 2019 (12) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT has criticized the practice of writ Courts directing release of the seized goods where the statute provides for provisional release. The respondents are directed to decide the application of the petitioner for provisional release of the goods in question in accordance with the rules, regulations and Government policies applicable to the facts of the case - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Detention of goods due to over-valuation, Provisional release of goods, Criticism of writ courts directing release of seized goods

The High Court addressed a writ petition seeking the return of detained goods due to over-valuation. The goods, printed handloom bed sheets under shipping bill No.4651654 dated 4th June 2019, were detained by the respondents. The respondents issued a detention memo, and the petitioner applied for provisional release of the goods. The Court referred to a recent Supreme Court decision criticizing writ courts for directing the release of seized goods when the statute allows for provisional release. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to decide on the petitioner's application for provisional release within eight weeks in line with applicable rules and regulations, disposing of the writ petition.

1. Detention of Goods due to Over-valuation:
The petitioner sought the return of goods detained by the respondents, citing over-valuation as the reason for detention. The Court acknowledged the detention of printed handloom bed sheets under a specific shipping bill. It noted that the respondents had issued a detention memo for the goods and that the petitioner had applied for provisional release. This issue highlighted the importance of addressing valuation discrepancies leading to goods' detention, emphasizing compliance with relevant regulations.

2. Provisional Release of Goods:
The petitioner's application for the provisional release of the detained goods was a key aspect of the case. The Court directed the respondents to decide on this application within a stipulated timeframe, emphasizing adherence to rules, regulations, and government policies applicable to the situation. By addressing the provisional release request, the Court aimed to ensure a fair and timely resolution for the petitioner regarding the detained goods, underscoring the significance of procedural compliance in such matters.

3. Criticism of Writ Courts Directing Release of Seized Goods:
The Court referenced a recent Supreme Court decision critiquing the practice of writ courts ordering the release of seized goods when provisions for provisional release exist. By citing the specific case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd., the Court highlighted the need to align judicial decisions with statutory provisions related to the release of detained goods. This criticism underscored the importance of legal adherence and statutory interpretation in addressing similar cases involving the detention and release of goods, emphasizing the need for consistency and compliance with established legal frameworks.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment in this case addressed the detention of goods due to over-valuation, the application for provisional release, and the critique of writ courts directing the release of seized goods. By providing a detailed analysis of each issue, the Court ensured a balanced and legally sound resolution, emphasizing compliance with regulations and statutory provisions in handling matters related to the detention and release of goods.