Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Ved Prakash Vaish, J.
Gurdeep Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) - Resopndent
W.P.(C) 4152/2015
Decided On : 17-09-2015
Customs Act - Provisional Release of Goods - Section 110, Section 110A, Section 128 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 110 and Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, which deal with the seizure and provisional release of goods. The court also referred to Section 128, which provides for appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) against decisions or orders passed under the Customs Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's consignment of auto motor parts was seized by the customs department on the grounds of concealed value and mis-declaration. The department provisionally released the goods subject to execution of a bond for a re-determined value, which the petitioner contested as unreasonable. The petitioner sought immediate release, citing potential deterioration of the goods' quality and marketability.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned order fell within the description of 'order or decision' with respect to provisional clearance and, therefore, the appeal against it should lie to the Commissioner of Appeals. The court directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority, as the remedy of appeal was available under the Customs Act, 1962.
Issues: The main issue was the provisional release of the petitioner's seized goods and the valuation imposed by the customs department. Additionally, the court addressed the maintainability of the writ petition and the availability of the remedy of appeal under the Customs Act, 1962.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 128 of the Customs Act, which provides for appeals against decisions or orders passed under the Act. The court emphasized that the appeal against the impugned order should lie to the Commissioner of Appeals and directed the petitioner to pursue the remedy of appeal.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the petitioner was directed to prefer an appeal before the concerned appropriate authority within four weeks, which should be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the appeal.
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner assails order dated 06.04.2015 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Customs Preventive (Alpha Group), New Delhi whereby the consignment of the petitioner was provisionally released subject to execution of bond for re-determined value of the imported goods i.e. Rs. 54,48,608/- (Rupees Fifty four lakhs forty eight thousand six hundred eight) supported with cash deposit of differential duty of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) and bank guarantee of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) with auto renewal clause.
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the present case are that vide panchnama dated 11-12.02.2015, the concerned seizing officer seized the consignment of goods imported by the petitioner namely auto motor parts under Bill of Entry No. 8242439 dated 09.02.2015 and MAWB No. 176-7496-6124 bearing an assessable value of Rs. 3,18,125.44 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the allegations that the value and description of those goods were concealed and mis-declared and further that excess goods were found in the consignment. Vide letter dated 03.03.2015 addressed to the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), the petitioner asked for release of the goods. Again vide another communication dated 08.03.2015 addressed to the Commission of Customs (Prev.), with its copy to the Chief Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), the petitioner once again requested the respondent for the provisional release of her goods while complaining about the behavior of an official of the department. The petitioner sent another letter dated 25.03.2015, to the Chief Commissioner of Customs (Prev.). On 01.04.2015 yet another letter was handed over which was replied to vide impugned order/letter dated 06.04.2015 by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs Preventive (Alpha Group) of the respondent. In terms of the order dated 06.04.2015, the value of the petitioner’s goods were re-determined at Rs. 54,48,608/- supported with cash deposit of differential duty of Rs. 10,00,000/- and bank guarantee of Rs. 8,00,000/- with automatic renewal clause as per prescribed format.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the value of goods, ordered to be released provisionally, is less than Rs. 4,00,000/-, but, with a view to deny the provisional release, deliberately those goods have been evaluated at Rs. 54,48,608/-, without disclosing as to how the department has reached at that value. It is contended that in the absence of any reasoned order, the said valuation of the goods amounting to Rs. 54,48,608/-, while rejecting the transaction value and while ignoring the earlier and contemporary import of similar goods, is not only contrary to the Valuation Rules under the Customs Act, 1962, but also contrary to the facts of the case. The abovementioned conduct of the department in putting such unreasonable onerous conditions for provisional release of the goods clearly reflects mala-fide of its officials. The apprehension/allegations of the department qua the goods in question being counterfeit in nature is an afterthought and such a submission is being made by the department with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioner due to ulterior motives.
4. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the goods are not released to the petitioner immediately they would deteriorate in quality and would lose their marketability.
5. Per Contra, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent contended that a writ in the nature of certiorari is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner’s consignment was examined on 11-12.02.2015 at Air Cargo Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi in the presence of Mr. Hemant Kumar Jha, representative of CHA and it was found that the imported goods were branded auto parts for vehicles such as BMW, Mercedes, Toyota etc., whereas no Brand, Model was declared by the petitioner in the Bill of Entry No. 8242439 dated 09.02
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
