2021 (3) TMI 733 - HC - Customs

Seeking release the electronic consumer goods upon payment of an appropriate duty, redemption fine and penalty - Absolute Confiscation - i-phones/i pads - HELD THAT - The request for release justified particularly seeing as the items for which the release is sought are electronic goods that are prone to speedy obsolescence - In view of the aforesaid, there is a direction to R2 to release the goods within one week from the date of petitioner remitting duty, fine and penalty. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Implementation of order for release of confiscated electronic consumer goods.
2. Response to petitioner's request for release of goods.
3. Pending revision filed by revenue.
4. Release of specific electronic goods due to obsolescence.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a mandamus to direct the Principal Commissioner of Customs and Joint Commissioner of Customs Adjudication-Air to implement the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the release of confiscated iPhones/iPads upon payment of duty, redemption fine, and penalty as directed by the first Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority allowed redemption of goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act 1962, based on precedents like Commissioner of Customs Vs Atul Automotives Private Ltd and Z.B.Nagarkar Vs. UOI. The petitioner expressed readiness to comply with the payment requirements, and the High Court directed the release of goods within a week of payment.

2. The petitioner's request for release of goods was met with no response from the authorities, leading to the filing of the writ petition. The Senior Standing Counsel for the revenue mentioned that a revision against the Commissioner (Appeals) order was filed and pending with the Government of India, along with an application for stay. However, there was no stay on the order of the first Appellate Authority, justifying the petitioner's plea for release.

3. The revenue's contention regarding the pending revision did not prevent the High Court from granting relief to the petitioner for the specific electronic goods, iPhones/iPads, due to their susceptibility to rapid obsolescence. The court emphasized the justification for releasing these items promptly and directed the Joint Commissioner to release the goods within a week of the petitioner fulfilling the payment obligations. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner, with no costs imposed.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the implementation of the Appellate Authority's order for the release of confiscated electronic goods, highlighting the petitioner's readiness to comply with payment requirements and the lack of response from the authorities. The court's decision to grant relief for the specific electronic goods underscored the importance of addressing the rapid obsolescence factor, leading to the directive for immediate release upon payment fulfillment.