2022 (9) TMI 959 - HC - Customs

Seeking release of de-stuffed imported goods - Defatted Coconut - classified under Tariff/ item/CTH 23065020 or otherwise? - seeking issuance of demurrage waiver certificate in terms of rule 6(1) (1) Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009 - HELD THAT - The issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the earlier decision of this Court in the case of M/S PAVAN ENTERPRISES VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) , THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2022 (8) TMI 1092 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT where it was held that In the light of the specific direction issued by this Court and liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to file an application under Section 110A of the Customs Act, the respondents clearly misdirected itself in refusing to pass an order of release on the ground that the adjudicating authority had already passed an order against the petitioner by relying upon the order dated 31.12.2021 referred to in paragraph-3 of the impugned order, without appreciating that the same does not pertain to the adjudication proceedings in relation to the petitioner, since the same had already culminated in the order at Annexure- P dated 10.03.2021 itself, much prior to 31.12.2021. Despite the respondents preferring further appeal from the order passed by the first appellate authority, this Court took into account that there is no interim order passed in the said further appeal preferred by the respondents, coupled with the fact that the appeal being continuation of the original proceedings, since the first appellate authority had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 22.06.2022, there was no impediment for the original authority to pass a provisional order of release of goods in terms of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The present petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Petition seeking mandamus for release of imported goods, demurrage waiver certificate, and damages.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the release of de-stuffed imported goods and issuance of a demurrage waiver certificate. The petitioner also requested payment of costs and damages. The court heard arguments from both parties and reviewed the case material.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the present case aligns with a previous decision of the court in a similar matter. The only distinction highlighted was the lack of an appeal by the respondents in the current case, unlike the previous case. It was contended that the current petition should be resolved based on the precedent.

3. In contrast, the respondents' counsel stated that they did not appeal the order within the prescribed 90-day period. They argued that there was no basis for the present petition and requested its dismissal.

4. The court noted that in a previous case, it considered the absence of an interim order in a further appeal by the respondents. Given that the first appellate authority had already ruled in favor of the petitioner, the court found no hindrance to releasing the goods provisionally under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the court deemed the issues in both cases similar and decided to dispose of the current petition in line with the previous ruling.

5. The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the release of the goods to the petitioner within a week, subject to compliance with the Customs Act. The release was specified to be without prejudice to any future appeal by the revenue, and all contentions raised by the parties were left open for further consideration.