The Customs Act mandates timely completion of investigations regarding detained goods, ensuring procedural compliance with notice requirements under Sections 110 and 124 to avoid unlawful detention.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:

“a. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare:

i. that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have failed to exercise the powers conferred upon them by the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962 as well as the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, in deciding the Petitioner's Applications for Warehousing and Re-export, (Annexures 'D' and Annexure 'E' hereto), respectively is bad in law;

ii. that the Petitioner's goods covered under Bills of Entry as listed in Table - I herein in paragraph 6 are illegally detained since no seizure memo has been issued till date;

b. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing Respondents, their servants, subordinates, and agents:

i. to allow the Petitioner's Application for Warehousing filed on 06.01.2025 (Annexure 'D' hereto);

ii. to allow the Petitioner's Application for Re-export filed on 06.01.2025 (Annexure 'E' hereto);

iii. to issue a Detention-cum-Demurrage Waiver Certificate in terms of Regulation 6(1)(1) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, in respect to the detained goods;

c. Such further and other reliefs in the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”

2. Heard Sri Ricab Chand K, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri S R Dodawad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Aravind V Chavan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4.

3. Brief facts, germane, are as follows:

3.1. The petitioner in the course and in furtherance of his business sought to import carbon steel products from China. The petitioner's suppliers in China are said to have supplied or shipped goods by way of 7 bills of lading and described them as carbon steel seamless pipes. Upon arrival of the aforesaid consignments, the petitioner filed 7 bills of entry between 17-11-2024 to 01-12-2024, for clearance. The details of bills of entry are narrated in the petition.

3.2 On arrival of the said consignments, the same is examined and put on hold by the officers of the 4^th respondent, who drew samples there-from and forwarded the same for further examination. When the goods were under examination, the petitioner, being unaware of the reasons for detention of the goods, is said to have contacted its suppliers with regard to the consignment, only to be informed that the shipped materials inadvertently are stainless steel pipes, instead of high carbon steel seamless pipes. Therefore, the suppliers agreed to take back the goods. The copies of the communications between the parties, is also appended to the petition.

3.3. On examination of the goods, it transpires that the 4^th respondent investigating agency holds that instead of carbon steel products as declared, the petitioner's consignments contained stainless steel seamless pipes, which attract anti dumping duty, and therefore the goods covered under the bills of entry were sent for examination and detained by the 4^th respondent. The goods continue to remain in detention and the petitioner submits an application placing all the facts seeking warehousing of the goods under Section 49 of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962 (‘Act’ for short). Since the consignments were under investigation, it was not cleared for a long time and unable to bear the demurrage charges which continued detention of the goods, the petitioner then files an application for warehousing of the goods, which is permitted at a later point in time. The petitioner, on 06-01-2025, sought permission for re-export of the goods before the 3^rd respondent.