9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 1004 - HC - CustomsRelease of seized goods - Black Pepper - freely importable goods or not - value declared is more than ₹ 500/- - prohibition as per the amended DGFT notification No. 21/2015-2020, dated 25.07.2018 - HELD THAT - There is no necessity for this Court to go into the aspect with regard to the investigation, which is being carried on by DRI, Tuticorin, because the issue involved in the writ petition is whether the goods imported by the appellant can be released by the Customs Authority, either by way of a release in total or by way of a provisional release. Since the DRI has taken up the matter for investigation, the appellant seeks for provisional release of the cargo, which has been imported by them, seized by the DRI and presently lying in the Tuticorin Port. If such is the prayer sought for by the appellant, then reasonable time should be granted to the Competent Authority to take a decision on such an application or representation being filed for provisional release of the cargo. There is no formal request made to the Competent Authority, who is stated to be the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, praying for provisional release of the cargo. Therefore, in our considered view, the prayer as couched in the writ petition is premature and no Writ of Mandamus could have been issued at the present stage, more particularly, when the Authority is yet to take a decision on the matter and more importantly, when there is no specific request made by the appellant for grant of provisional release before the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin. The prayer sought for in the writ petition is not maintainable or rather has to be taken to be premature, considering the facts of the case, since the Revenue states that the import of black pepper into India, which is valued below ₹ 500/- is prohibited taking into consideration the welfare of the agriculturists and it is alleged by the DRI that the imports had been effected by the appellant by inflating the invoice value. The writ petition stands disposed of by directing the appellant to file a proper application for grant of provisional release of the cargo along with their submissions as well as the documents which they propose to rely upon and the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, shall fix the date for personal hearing, preferably, through video conferencing.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of customs duty on imported goods. 2. Validity of seizure of goods by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. 3. Jurisdiction of the Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus for release of goods. 4. Requirement of a formal request for provisional release of imported goods. 5. Distinction between investigation by DRI and request for provisional release. Issue 1: Interpretation of customs duty on imported goods: The appellant imported black pepper from Srilanka with a declared value exceeding ?500 per kilogram, which is freely importable as per the notification. However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized the goods alleging that the purchase price in Srilanka was below ?500 per kilogram. The appellant paid customs duty at ?500 per kilogram and sought release of the goods. The Court emphasized the need for the Customs Authority to consider a request for provisional release of goods, especially when the investigation is ongoing. Issue 2: Validity of seizure of goods by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence: The DRI seized the goods, alleging that the invoices were inflated to circumvent the import price restrictions. The appellant requested the release of goods through a Writ of Mandamus. The Court highlighted the importance of a formal request for provisional release to the Competent Authority, in this case, the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, before issuing a Writ of Mandamus. Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus for release of goods: The Court found that the appellant's prayer for a blanket relief through a Writ of Mandamus was premature as there was no formal request made for provisional release of the goods to the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin. The Court directed the appellant to file a proper application for provisional release, which the Competent Authority should consider in accordance with the law. Issue 4: Requirement of a formal request for provisional release of imported goods: The Court noted that the appellant had not made a formal request to the Competent Authority for provisional release of the goods. It emphasized the necessity of a specific request for grant of provisional release before considering the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus. Issue 5: Distinction between investigation by DRI and request for provisional release: The Court clarified that the ongoing investigation by the DRI and the request for provisional release were independent matters. It highlighted the need for the appellant to approach the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, with a proper request for provisional release, separate from the investigation conducted by the DRI. In conclusion, the High Court held that the appellant's prayer for a blanket relief through a Writ of Mandamus was premature, emphasizing the importance of a formal request for provisional release of the goods to the Competent Authority. The Court allowed the Writ Appeal, set aside the interim direction, and directed the appellant to file a proper application for provisional release, which the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, should consider within a specified timeframe.
|
