9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of seizure is passed is that, the proper Officer has to have reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation - No such reasons are explicit in the impugned seizure memorandum, dated 11.01.2018, except, to rely upon a report stated to have been obtained from M/s. Arecanut Research and Development Foundations, Mangalore, which appears to be a private Organization, and not a accredited Laboratory by the Central Government. Thus, without recording the reasons that the goods are liable for confiscation, the second respondent could not have passed the impugned seizure memorandum. In the instant case, the seizure memorandum of the second respondent only refers to the test report of the Private Organisation and not a Central Laboratory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which is a seizure memorandum, dated 11.01.2018, where, the goods imported by the petitioner have been seized on the alleged grounds of misdeclaration, resulting in a wrong classification of the goods, under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 4. The petitioner imported 27,000 kgs of goods, classified as 'unflavoured supari' from Indonesia, vide Commercial Invoice, dated 20.07.2017, at US dollar 48600. The goods arrived at Chennai Port, and the petitioner filed a Bill of Entry, No.0945982, dated 28.07.2017, for clearance of the aforesaid goods. The goods were assessed to duty and out of charge was accorded in respect of the said Bill of Entry, under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 21069030 as 'unflavoured supari'. However, the Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the petitioner before the Advance Ruling Authority may be answered in the affirmative that the products shall be covered under Chapter 21 and not under Chapter 8 of the Customs Tariff Act. In spite of the petitioner, being armed with the order passed by the Advance Ruling Authority, the consignment imported by the petitioner has been detained, Mahazar has been recorded and subsequently, the impugned seizure memorandum has been issued. 6. It has to be considered as to whether the Officers of the D.R.I., especially, in the rank of the Senior Intelligence Officer can act against the Advance Ruling issued by the Advance Ruling Authority. 7. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue would contend that the Department is in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n inexpensive benefit and the procedure is simple and expeditious. The question, on which, Advance Ruling could be sought for, includes, i) classification of any goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, ii) Applicability of notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, bearing on the rate of duty. So far as the binding nature of the Advance Ruling is concerned, it has been held that the Advance Ruling pronounced by the Authority would be binding on the applicant, who sought it, in respect of the question raised in the application, and on the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, as the case may be and the Authorities, subordinate to him, in respect of the applicant, unless, there is a change ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed is that, the proper Officer has to have reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation. I find that, no such reasons are explicit in the impugned seizure memorandum, dated 11.01.2018, except, to rely upon a report stated to have been obtained from M/s. Arecanut Research and Development Foundations, Mangalore, which appears to be a private Organization, and not a accredited Laboratory by the Central Government. Thus, without recording the reasons that the goods are liable for confiscation, the second respondent could not have passed the impugned seizure memorandum. 12. The Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi, in the case of Worldline Tradex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) reported in [(2016) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtificate for waiver of the warehousing and demurrages from the date of detention till the date of release of the goods. It is pointed out that, on an earlier occasion, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.22114 of 2017, seeking for release of the same product, which was imported vide Bill of Entry No.2696680, dated 02.08.2017 and detained vide Mahazar, dated 10.08.2017. The said Writ Petition was disposed of, by this Court, by order, dated 12.09.2017, directing the Authority to provisionally assess the Bill of Entry and release the goods and a direction was issued to the Commissioner of Customs to issue Detention Certificate. It appears that, though the Detention and Demurrage Certificate was issued, yet, the Steamer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
