9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1133 - HC - CustomsSeeking provisional release of the goods - import of consignments of fresh Kiwi Fruits from UAE - perishable nature of goods - section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Under the statutory provisions, the seizure of the goods would follow the inquiry and investigation to be further followed by adjudication process which may or may not ultimately lead to confiscation of imported goods as contemplated in section 111 of the Act. The stage of inquiry has yet not been started. It is reflected that though goods were seized on 16.1.2023, so far the petitioner is not issued show cause notice. In any case, the adjudicatory proceedings have not started - The court finds that when the goods are perishable in nature, the authorities should act with greater swiftness to proceed with the adjudicatory mechanism and take a final decision. As far as the prayer for provisional release of the goods are concerned, it could be considered not only on the basis of the facts obtaining, but also in view of decision of M/S. A AND A SHIPPING SERVICES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2022 (12) TMI 778 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT as could be gathered from the contents of para 9.2 of the said decision. In that case, the seizure of the goods of very nature was based on identical allegation namely that the same Phytosanitary Certificate issued by the Chilen authorities were used for different consignments by different importers. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the petitioner has agreed to abide by the conditions which may be imposed in light of the decision of this court in M/s. A and A Shipping Services, which could be applied to guide the final order to be passed, this court is inclined to grant the prayer by allowing the provisional release of the goods. As far as the conditions on which the goods may be released to the petitioner, the court leaves the said aspect to the competent authority concerned who shall prescribe the conditions on the lines of the conditions prescribed by this court in M/s. A and A Shipping Services exercising sound discretion in that regard and upon compliance of such conditions shall provisional release the goods. The authorities shall permit the release of the goods on directions imposed.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the seizure of imported goods by customs authorities, the request for provisional release of perishable goods, and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Seizure of Goods: The petitioner, engaged in import business, sought relief in a Special Civil Application to clear goods imported through two Bill of Entries. The customs authorities seized the goods citing the use of Phytosanitary certificates by other importers. The petitioner requested provisional release of the goods, emphasizing their perishable nature and readiness to comply with necessary conditions. The court noted the absence of unfit for consumption claims and highlighted certificates supporting the goods' quality. Provisional Release Request: The petitioner pressed for the provisional release of the goods pending adjudication under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. Referring to a previous case involving similar circumstances, the petitioner sought relief based on the perishable nature of the goods and compliance with required conditions. The court emphasized the need for swift action in cases involving perishable goods and considered the previous decision's applicability to the current situation. Court Decision and Directions: The court, considering the circumstances and the petitioner's willingness to abide by conditions, granted the provisional release of the goods. The competent authority was tasked with determining the specific conditions for release, including tax payment, bank guarantee, and bond submission. The court set a timeline for the release process and stressed the importance of starting and completing the adjudicatory process promptly. It clarified that the judgment did not delve into the merits of the case, leaving such determinations to the adjudicating authorities.
|
