2025 (3) TMI 1327 - HC - Customs

Seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to pass an order for unconditional and provisional release of the goods entered for export - grievance of the Petitioner is that despite repeated letters to the Commissioner of Customs requesting for release of the goods and seeking reasons for detention no response has been received by the Petitioner - HELD THAT - The Customs Department is taking steps only after filing of the present writ petition. The delay in this manner would not be permissible as consignments of the Petitioner and other similarly placed persons are held up when expedited steps are not taken for clearing of goods. A perusal of the letters on record also show that on 20th January 2025 and 12th March 2025 repeated communications have been written by the Petitioner to the Commissioner of Customs inter alia requesting for release of the goods but no response was elicited. Under these circumstances it is directed that within a period of seven days the Customs Department shall take a decision in this matter and provisionally release the goods subject to any reasonable conditions that it deems appropriate on facts. Petition disposed off.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

Whether the Customs Department's prolonged detention of the Petitioner's export goods without issuing a seizure memo or Panchama was justified under the relevant legal framework.
Whether the Customs Department's actions were in compliance with Circular No. 30/2013 and other relevant instructions regarding the provisional release of export goods.
Whether the Customs Department's apprehension of overvaluation of goods justified the delay in processing the export consignment.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Detention of Export Goods

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework involves Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which empower the High Court to issue directions or orders. Circular No. 30/2013 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBIC) emphasizes the need for expedited clearance of export goods and mandates that any detention beyond three days should be brought to the attention of the Commissioner of Customs.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found the Customs Department's actions unacceptable as no seizure memo or Panchama was issued from 13th January 2025 until 25th March 2025, despite the consignment being detained.
Key evidence and findings: The Customs Department had not responded to repeated communications from the Petitioner requesting the release of the goods. The only response received was that the matter was referred to the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB).
Application of law to facts: The Court applied the provisions of Circular No. 30/2013, which mandates the provisional release of export goods unless prohibited, and found the Customs Department's delay unjustified.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Customs Department argued an apprehension of overvaluation to claim duty drawbacks unlawfully. However, the Court held that such apprehensions did not justify the prolonged detention without following due process.
Conclusions: The Court directed the Customs Department to decide on the provisional release of the goods within seven days, subject to reasonable conditions.

2. Compliance with Circular No. 30/2013

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Circular No. 30/2013 reiterates the need for prompt clearance of export goods and states that any detention beyond three days must be reported to the Commissioner of Customs.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized the importance of the Circular, highlighting that the Customs Department failed to comply with its directives.
Key evidence and findings: The Customs Department issued a summons on 25th March 2025, seeking various documents from the Petitioner, indicating that steps were being taken only after the filing of the writ petition.
Application of law to facts: The Court found that the Customs Department's delay in acting on the Circular's instructions was unjustified and contrary to the principles of expedited clearance.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Customs Department's request for additional time to investigate was rejected by the Court as unreasonable, given the elapsed time since the detention.
Conclusions: The Court ordered the Customs Department to comply with the Circular's provisions and take immediate steps to release the goods provisionally.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "There can be no justification to hold up export consignments for long periods unless the export goods are prohibited under Customs Act, 1962 or ITC (HS) Policy."
Core principles established: The judgment reinforced the principle that export goods should not be detained unnecessarily and that compliance with procedural safeguards, as outlined in relevant Circulars, is mandatory.
Final determinations on each issue: The Court directed the Customs Department to provisionally release the goods within seven days, subject to reasonable conditions, and mandated the Petitioner to appear with requisite documents for further proceedings.