SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, S.M. Modak, JJ.
Isha Exim – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 7898 of 2021, 2284 of 2021 and 7355 of 2021
Decided On : 18-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Prakash Shah i/b Aansh Desai, for the Appellant; P.S. Jetley, Senior Advocate, J.B. Mishra and Maya Mujumdar, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the Authority for Advance Rulings' decision and the court's direction for fresh testing and release of the goods upon submission of a Provisional Duty Bond.

Headnote:

Customs Act - Import of Betel Nut Products - Section 110, Section 18 - The court discussed the classification of betel nut products under Chapter Head 21069030 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the binding effect of the Authority for Advance Rulings' decision, and the legality of the seizure and provisional release orders. The court directed the respondents to draw samples of the goods for fresh testing and release the goods upon submission of a Provisional Duty Bond, subject to the final assessment depending upon the fresh test report.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner imported betel nut products and challenged the seizure and provisional release orders issued by the customs authorities. The petitioner argued that the goods were classified under Chapter Head 21069030 and were subject to a binding decision by the Authority for Advance Rulings.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the respondents to draw samples of the goods for fresh testing and release the goods upon submission of a Provisional Duty Bond, subject to the final assessment depending upon the fresh test report.

Issues: The issues involved the classification of imported betel nut products, the legality of the seizure and provisional release orders, and the binding effect of the Authority for Advance Rulings' decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents should draw samples of the goods for fresh testing and release the goods upon submission of a Provisional Duty Bond, subject to the final assessment depending upon the fresh test report.

Final Decision: All the Writ Petitions were allowed, and the court directed the respondents to release the goods upon submission of a Provisional Duty Bond, subject to the final assessment depending upon the fresh test report.

JUDGMENT

R.D. Dhanuka, J. - Rule.

2. Mr. P.S. Jetley, learned counsel for Respondents waives service of notice. By consent of parties, Petitions are heard finally.

3. In Writ Petition No. 7898 of 2021, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned Provisional Release Order dated 22nd October, 2021 and further seeks a writ of mandamus to clear the goods imported by the petitioner covered by Bill of Entry No. 2784973 dated 16th February, 2021 on payment of applicable duty under Chapter 21. In the Writ Petition No. 7355 of 2021, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned Seizure Memo dated 3rd August, 2021 and the DYCC JNCH, Laboratory Test Reports. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus to forthwith assess and clear the goods imported by the petitioner and covered by Bill of Entry No. 2784973 dated 16th February, 2021 on payment of applicable duty under Chapter 21.

4. By Writ Petition No. 2284 of 2021, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the Officers of the respondent no. 2 in charge of Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (Import) are not 'proper officers' for the purpose of Section 110 of the Customs Act and seeks further declaration that the decision of the Authority for Advance Rulings dated 31st March, 2017 is binding on the respondents. The petitioner has also prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned Seizure Memo dated 24th March, 2021 and also the impugned order dated 13th May, 2021. The petitioner has prayed for an order and direction against the respondents to clear the goods imported by the petitioner vide Bill of Entry No. 9936145 dated 12th December, 2020 and Bill of Entry No. 2784973 dated 16th February, 2021 on execution and furnishing of a Provisional Duty Bond in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act.

5. The petitioner is engaged in the business of import of various edible products including products of betel nut (processed supari). According to the petitioner, the said products of betel nut is classified under Chapter Head 21069030 of the First Schedule in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Sometime in the year 2016, the petitioner filed an application bearing no. AAR/44/CVS-1-14-2016 before the Authority for Advance Ruling, New Delhi ('AAR') in terms of Section 28H of the Customs Act. The said Authority decided the said application on 31st March, 2017, wherein the classification of the said products was confirmed under CTH - 21069030. The respondent no. 5 did not prefer any appeal against the said ruling dated 31st March, 2017 under Section 28KA of the Customs Act.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that on 12th December, 2020, the petitioner imported a consignment in Unflavoured Processed supari from JNPT Port vide Bill of Entry No. 9936145 dated 12th December, 2020. On 16th December, 2020, the petitioner imported the same products vide Bill of Entry No. 9980277 dated 16th December, 2020. The said Bill of Entry was provisionally assessed and cleared by the respondent no. 6 on payment of custom duty and filing of Provisional Duty Bond.

7. On 16th December, 2021, the petitioner imported another consignment vide Bill of Entry No. 2784973. On 24th March, 2021, the respondents issued a Seizure Memorandum seizing goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 9936945 dated 12th December, 2020. On 6th May, 2021, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition bearing Stamp No. 9836 of 2021 challenging the said Seizure Memo dated 24th March, 2021. On 6th May, 2021, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition bearing Stamp No. 9836 of 2021 filed by the petitioner in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents that SIIB had recommended provisional release of goods and that adjudicating authority would pass an order for provisional release of goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act within a week's time.

8. On 13th May, 2021, the respondent no. 6 passed a Provisional Rel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top