Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2084
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JJ.
MAGGIE MARKETING PVT LTD - PETITIONER
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) & ORS – RESPONDENTS
W.P.(C) 5307 of 2017
Decided On : 07-07-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, Ms. Anjali Jha Manish, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Mr. Sagar Rohatgi
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Mr. Abhishek Ghai
The exercise of discretion under Section 110 A of the Act for provisional release of imported goods involves a case-specific approach, and the court's review is limited to examining if the discretion has been rightly exercised.
Headnote:
Provisional Release - Import of Goods - Section 110 A of the Act - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the legal provisions under Section 110 A of the Act and the distinction between provisional release of goods and provisional assessments. It highlighted the exercise of discretion by the customs authorities and the scope of judicial review in such cases. The court also referred to previous decisions and emphasized the need for a case-specific approach in determining the conditions for provisional release of imported goods.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, engaged in the import business, challenged an order for provisional release of goods with conditions imposed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner argued that the conditions were too harsh and that the procedure for effecting seizure was not followed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conditions imposed for provisional release of the imported goods were not arbitrary or unreasonable, considering the misdeclaration of goods and the presence of prohibited/restricted items. It dismissed the petition and canceled the next date of hearing.
Issues: The issues revolved around the harshness of the conditions for provisional release, the procedure for seizure, and the disputed misdeclaration of goods.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the conditions for provisional release were justified given the misdeclaration and presence of prohibited/restricted items, and that no case was made out for interference at that stage.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the next date of hearing was canceled.
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. This petition has been filed by Maggie Marketing Pvt. Ltd., which is a company having its corporate office at Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Petitioner is engaged in the business of import of miscellaneous electronic items, mobile accessories etc.
2. The challenge in the present petition, which is the second round of litigation, is to an order dated 2nd June, 2017 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Customs, by which goods imported by the Petitioner under five different Bills of Entry (B/E) were ordered to be released provisionally with conditions. Four of the B/Es were dated 8th April, 2017 and one was dated 19th April, 2017.
3. The background facts are set out in two orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the same Petitioner. The first being the order dated 30th May, 2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.4956/2017 which reads as under:
“1. Notice. Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed before the Court a chart giving details of 10 bills of entry (B/E) filed by the Petitioner on various dates beginning from 3rd April, 2017 till 19th April, 2017.
2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that although the consignments, which were brought in containers, have been examined in the presence of the Customs House Agent (‘CHA’) of the Petitioner, there is no intimation received till date as regards the outcome of such examination. A reference is made to a recent circular issued on 8th February, 2017 by the Central Board of Excise & Customs about timely action to be taken by the Department on goods that have arrived at the port but are held-up without any separate seizure orders being passed.
3. Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing Counsel for the Department states that of the ten B/Es, the CHA has not still furnished the originals of two B/Es (9258840 and 9259533 dated 11th April, 2017).
4. It is stated by Ms. Anjali Manish, learned counsel for the Petitioner, without prejudice to her contention that the documents in original have already been furnished, that that in respect of these B/Es the CHA will present all the original documents today itself at 4 pm. The statement is taken on record. If the CHA presents the documents, as stated, the examination of the two containers will be undertaken forthwith and a decision will be taken and communicated the Petitioner not later than one week from today.
5. As far as B/E No. 9230914 dated 8th April, 2017 is concerned, Mr. Narula states that an order of the provisional release of the goods will be passed positively on or before 2nd June, 2017.
6. In relation to three B/Es i.e., Nos. 9141745, 9230885 and 9368425, Mr. Narula states that the seizure orders have been passed yesterday i.e., on 29th May, 2017. Copy thereof has been handed over to learned counsel for the Petitioner. As regards B/E 9229993 dated 8th April, 2017, he states the examination of the container is complete but there appears to be an issue regarding valuation. It is directed that an order in this regard should be passed on or before 2nd June, 2017.
7. That leaves three B/Es i.e., 9230900, 9230883 and 9371704. Mr. Narula assures the Court that the examination of these containers having been already completed in the presence of the CHA, necessary orders in respect thereof will positively be passed on 2nd June, 2017.
8. The Court directs that an affidavit of compliance be filed by the Department before the next date of hearing.
9. List on 10th July, 2017.
10. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.”
4. Due to an error in the said order as regards the details of the B/Es, upon mentioning a further order was passed on 31st May 2017, which reads as under:
“1. Upon being mentioned, the matter has been taken up for hearing.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, paras 5 and 7 of the order dated 30th May, 2017 shall now read as under:-
5. As far as B/E No. 9230900 dated 8th April 2017 is concerned, Mr. Narula states that an order on the r
