9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 921 - HC - CustomsValidity of release order under Section 110A of the Customs Act - Betel Nuts - fulfilment of condition precedent for the release of the subject betel nuts - Circular dated 16-08-2017 - HELD THAT - In the light of the decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in AGYA IMPORT LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, NEW DELHI 2018 (10) TMI 573 - DELHI HIGH COURT where under it is held that Circular dated 16-08- 2017 is directory and not mandatory and also that the conditions for said Circular are merely guidance coupled with the order dated 20-02-2020 issued by the Superintendent (Adjn.) under which the betel nuts were provisionally released on deposit of 25% of the seizure value, I am of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained especially when it is the specific case of the petitioner that the seizure value of the subject betel nuts is ₹ 52.23 lakh and under the impugned order the petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of ₹ 70.51 lakh. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), NER, Shillong to reconsider the provisional release of the subject betel nuts belonging to the petitioner in the light of the decision of Delhi High Court in Agya Import Ltd and the order of the Superintendent (Adjn.) dated 20-02-2020 on which petitioner relied upon.
Issues:
1. Release of seized betel nuts under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Applicability of Circular No. 35/2017-Cus, dated 16-08-2017 for provisional release of seized goods. 3. Interpretation of conditions for provisional release as per the Circular. 4. Comparison with judgments of Delhi High Court and Madras High Court. 5. Review of the impugned order and subsequent directions. Issue 1: Release of Seized Betel Nuts The petitioner purchased betel nuts from Mizoram and faced seizure by Assam Rifles personnel during transit. The Superintendent Customs Preventive Force allowed provisional release subject to a deposit and bond condition. The petitioner challenged this order under Article 226, claiming no alternative remedy was available. Issue 2: Applicability of Circular No. 35/2017-Cus The respondent argued that the seized betel nuts were not indigenous based on data from the Mizoram Government. The petitioner contested the release condition under Section 110A of the Customs Act, citing the absence of an alternative efficacious remedy. Issue 3: Interpretation of Conditions for Provisional Release The Circular dated 16-08-2017 outlined guidelines for provisional release, including the need for a bond and additional security. The Delhi High Court held these guidelines as directory, not mandatory, while the Madras High Court emphasized the exercise of discretion by the competent authority. Issue 4: Comparison with Delhi and Madras High Court Judgments The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court judgments were referenced to assess the validity of the impugned order. The Delhi High Court considered the Circular as guidance, and the Madras High Court highlighted the discretionary nature of the Circular for officers. Issue 5: Review of Impugned Order and Directions Considering the Delhi High Court's decision and the order provisionally releasing betel nuts at a lower deposit, the Court quashed the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Customs for reconsideration within a specified timeframe, ensuring a fair hearing for the petitioner and the right to challenge any adverse decision. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with directions for the Commissioner of Customs to review the release of the betel nuts in line with the Delhi and Madras High Court judgments and the order allowing a lower deposit for provisional release.
|
