2023 (5) TMI 823 - HC - Customs

Seeking permission to re-export of mobile phones (Apple brand I-Phones) - illegal import or not - case of petitioner is that despite the payment of the redemption fine and the penalty amount, the goods have not been released for the purpose of re-export - nondeposit of penalty by one noticee - HELD THAT - The contention raised by the respondent is unmerited. The petitioner has not challenged the Order-in-Original and has, in fact, deposited the redemption fine and paid the penalty imposed on him. The respondent cannot withhold the benefit of the order for the reason that the other co-noticees have failed to comply with the Order-in- Original and have not deposited the penalty amount. It is not disputed that the respondent is entitled to recover the penalty in terms of the provisions of the Act in case a noticee fails to deposit the same despite the order being passed. However, nondeposit of penalty by one noticee cannot be to the detriment of the other noticee - It is not disputed that the 50 mobile phones, which are sought to be re-exported after deposit of the redemption fine belong to the petitioner. The other co-noticees on whom the penalties have been imposed are the courier company and its employees. They are admittedly not the employees of the petitioner and he has no control over the actions of those noticees. Since the petitioner has deposited the requisite redemption fine and has deposited the penalty imposed upon him, the respondent is required to release the goods for the purpose of re-export as ordered by the Order-in-Original dated 10.02.2023. The present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to forthwith release the offending goods to the petitioner for the purpose of re-export.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the re-export of mobile phones (Apple brand I-Phones) seized for attempted illegal import under the Customs Act, 1962.

Summary:

Issue 1: Seizure and Adjudication
The respondent seized mobile phones attempted to be imported illegally, leading to a Show Cause Notice and an Order-in-Original declaring the phones were sought to be imported illegally. The value was redetermined, and penalties were imposed on various parties.

Issue 2: Imposition of Penalties
Penalties were imposed on the petitioner and other noticees under different sections of the Customs Act, along with a redemption fine. The penalties were also imposed on a courier company and its employees, in addition to the petitioner.

Issue 3: Dispute Over Re-export
The petitioner deposited the redemption fine and paid the imposed penalties but was not allowed to re-export the goods due to other noticees not depositing their penalties. The respondent contended that re-export cannot be allowed until all penalties are deposited.

Judgment:
The Court held that the petitioner, having complied with the redemption fine and penalties imposed on him, should not be denied the benefit of re-export due to the actions of other noticees. The petitioner had no control over the other noticees and was entitled to the release of the goods for re-export. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to release the goods to the petitioner for re-export, allowing the writ petition.