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

2014 Supreme(Cal) 827

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Indra Prasanna Mukerji, J.
SMT. BABITA DEVI MAURYA, PROPRIETRESS OF M/S. KUMAR ENTERPRISE – Petitioner
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA & ORS. – Respondents
WP No.1113 of 2014
Decided On : 04-12-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Arijit Chakraborty, Nilotpal Chowdhury, Debaditya Banerjee
For the Respondent: Rajarshri Bharadwaj, K.K. Maiti, Kausik Dey

Liability to pay duty and the duty payable must be established before any reference to duty in a decision, and the determination of security to be furnished by the petitioner should be in accordance with regulations and circulars.

Headnote:

Customs Act 1962 - Seizure of Betel Nuts - Release of Seized Goods

Fact of the Case:

A large quantity of 95.75 MT of betel nuts was seized from the writ petitioner by the respondent authorities under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act 1962, alleging illegal importation into India. The petitioner refutes the allegation, claiming the goods are indigenous and not imported.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the reference to duty in the decision of the Commissioner of Customs was premature, as the liability to pay duty and the duty payable were not established at that stage. The court directed the respondent authorities to determine the security to be furnished by the petitioner in accordance with regulations and circulars, and upon compliance, release the goods to the petitioner.

Issues: Dispute over the origin of the seized goods, premature reference to duty in the decision of the Commissioner of Customs, and determination of security to be furnished by the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the liability to pay duty and the duty payable were not established at the stage of the decision, and directed the respondent authorities to determine the security to be furnished by the petitioner in accordance with regulations and circulars.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ application by directing the respondent authorities to determine the security to be furnished by the writ petitioner in accordance with the order and the relevant regulations and circular. Upon compliance by the petitioner, the respondent authorities were ordered to release the goods to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

This writ application can be disposed of at the court application stage.

2. A large quantity of 95.75 MT of betel nuts was seized from the writ petitioner by the respondent authorities, under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act 1962.

3. The allegation of the respondent authorities against the writ petitioner is that these goods are illegally imported into India.

4. The writ petitioner refutes this. According to her, these goods are indigenous and have not been imported.

5. Section 110A of the said Act provides that seized goods may be released to the importer provided he or she furnishes, inter alia, security, to the satisfaction of the Customs Officer.

6. In this writ application the writ petitioner challenges the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) communicated by a letter dated 31st October, 2014 of an Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Annexure P-7, page 113). By this decision the 95.75 MT of betel nuts seized by the respondent authorities would be released provisionally subject to the petitioner fulfilling the following conditions:-

“(a) Payment of duty in accordance with the tariff value fixed by the Board (read with Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962).

(b) Execution of bond with value fixed in accordance with tariff value.

(c) Furnishing of Bank Guarantee of 40% of the Bond value [as in (b) above].”

7. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that his client cannot be asked to pay duty at this stage.

8. The law on the subject is this. After seizure under Section 110 of the said Act, the goods may be released to the owner, pending adjudication, upon taking a bond from him or her in a proper form. The authorities may ask for such security and fulfillment of conditions as they think fit and proper. Now, para 3.2 (Part 1) of Chapter 17 of the Central Excise Manual Supplementary instructions, read with a circular dated 2nd January, 2003 which is 686/2/2003-CX [P-8 page 114 of the petition] inter alia, provide that the goods may be released on 25% security. This simply means that the goods may be released upon obtaining security for 25% of their value.

9. In this case, there is a dispute whether the goods are indigenous or imported. If the department succeeds, they will be entitled to realise the duty together with the redemption fine, penalty and so on. If the writ petitioner wins, she will not be liable to pay any duty or any other sum.

10. Therefore, at this stage the reference in the letter dated 31st October, 2014, to duty is not in order, in my opinion, because the liability to pay duty and the duty payable are not established as of now.

11. It would be better for the respondent authorities to take security from the writ petitioner in accordance with the above regulations, read with the said circular. I make it abundantly clear that the department will be free to determine the security to be furnished by the petitioner to cover duty redemption fine etc. but the same should not exceed 25% of the value of the goods as mentioned in the above regulation and circular. The entire amount may be secured by the petitioner by a bank guarantee. A bond has also to be furnished in accordance with the above regulations.

12. Hence, I dispose of this writ application by directing the respondent authorities to determine the security to be furnished by the writ petitioner in terms of this order and the above regulation and circular by 12th December 2014. Upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee in favour of the appropriate Commissioner of Customs to that effect together with the required bond and other incidental documents if so required, the respondent authorities will release the goods to the petitioner within three working days thereafter.

13. Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.


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
whatsapp-icon Back to top