The judgment emphasizes the procedural requirements for seizure, provisional release, and adjudication of goods under the Customs Act, as well as the liability for demurrage and detention charges.

JUDGMENT

Amit Mahajan, J. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order directing learned Respondents to release the consignment imported under B/E No. 4995142 dated 10.08.2021 and 5030730 dated 12/08/2021.

b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or Order directing learned Respondents to either pay themselves or to waive the payment of demurrage detention and any other charges.

c. Issue Rule Nisi in terms of prayers at (a) and (b) above and confirm the same after hearing the parties;

d. Pass ad-interim ex-parte order in terms of prayer at (a) and above;

e. Award cost of this Petition;"

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the consignment comprising of "Knotted Woollen Carpets" was imported by the petitioners from the United States of America on 10.08.2021. The Bill of Entry being B/E No. 4995142, along with other import documents were submitted by the petitioner with the respondent authorities.

3. On 12.08.2021, another consignment comprising of "Knotted Woollen Carpets" was imported from United States of Emirates and the Bill of Entry being B/E No. 5090730, along with other import documents were submitted by the petitioner to the respondent authorities.

4. It is claimed that the consignment was examined by the Respondent No. 2/customs and samples were also drawn on 16.08.2021/17.08.2021. The consignment was, however, kept on hold on instructions given by Respondent No. 3/DRI to the custom authorities. It is claimed that the petitioner, thereafter, vide letter dated 07.09.2021, requested all the respondents to provisionally release the goods. The said request was not processed. The inaction on the part of the respondents led to filing of the present writ petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the seizure of goods can only be done in accordance with the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred as "the Act").

6. He submits that the order can be passed only if the appropriate Officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Act. Learned Counsel vehemently contends that no order under Section 110 was ever passed and only on oral instructions given by the Respondent No. 3, the consignment was put on hold.

7. He further submits that even if it is to be presumed that the goods were put on hold by exercising power under Section 110 of the Act, the same cannot be for an infinite period and are subject to adjudication. The goods can be ordered to be provisionally released on an application by the importer under Section 110A of the Act.

8. During the pendency of the present petition, this Court, in its order dated 01.06.2022, had noted that the Respondent No. 3 had placed before the Court, the seizure order passed on 09.02.2022 and the notice thereof to the petitioner by a letter dated 11.02.2022.

9. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the detailed investigation has been carried out and it is found that no business activities are being carried out by the petitioner company from the declared premises. He submits that the present case is one of import of mis-declared goods in the name of non-existing entity and is not a genuine import being in violation of Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.

10. He further submits that the order for seizure of the goods was, thereafter, passed on 09.02.2022, which was brought to the knowledge of the Court and is also recorded in the order dated 01.06.2022.

11. The extension of time limit for issuance of Show Cause Notice by a period of six months was also sought, which was granted by the Competent Authority. The Show Cause Notice for the purpose of adjudication was thereafter issued on 11.08.2022. He submits that the Department cannot be faulted for any delay in either passing the seizure order or issuing the Show Cause Noti