2020 (2) TMI 1265 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of goods - refund of IGST - lifting and removal of seizure - HELD THAT - Although, it is evident that investigation is under process, the provisions of section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, requires such investigation to be completed within a certain time frame. In case it relates to seizure of goods, documents and things, this time frame is initially for a period of six months which can be extended for a further period, not exceeding six months. As such, it is incumbent upon the concerned authorities to complete the investigation within the time frame as specified under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The writ petition is disposed off with a direction upon the concerned respondent authorities to complete the investigation at an early date and ensure that the adjudicatory process is completed within a reasonable period of time, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of a photostat certified copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge regarding seizure of goods by Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch (Export) at Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Maharashtra. Petitioner seeking refund of IGST withheld by respondent authorities.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging the seizure of goods by the Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch (Export) at a customs house in Maharashtra. The petitioner had obtained provisional release of the goods but sought a refund of the withheld IGST. The respondent authorities filed a counter affidavit stating that the goods were provisionally released with certain conditions, including furnishing a bond and bank guarantee. The authorities alleged that the exported goods were misclassified and overvalued, leading to an inflated IGST refund claim.

The respondent authorities initiated an investigation, issuing summons to relevant parties involved in the export transaction. Market surveys were conducted to ascertain the proper value of the goods. However, the investigation was still ongoing, and the IGST amount had not been refunded yet. The court noted that the Customs Act, 1962, mandates completion of such investigations within a specified time frame, typically six months, extendable for another six months. The court emphasized the need for timely completion of the investigation and adjudicatory process in this case.

Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondent authorities to expedite the investigation and ensure completion of the adjudicatory process within a reasonable period, preferably within six months from the date of the court's order. This decision underscores the importance of timely resolution in customs-related matters and the need for adherence to statutory timelines for investigations and adjudication in such cases.