The court applied the legal principle under Section 110-A of the Customs Act to order the provisional release of goods with specific conditions, considering the perishable nature of the goods.

1. Heard Mr.A.K.Jayaraj learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vikram Ramakrishnan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Velayutham Pichaya, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents herein to release the goods viz., 760 Packages viz., 3800 Packets of Coated Gummed Paper imported, vide Bill of Entry No.8711998, dated 10.12.2012, which was finally assessed by the Proper Officer under the Customs Act and total duty of Rs.1,81,532/- was also debited on 10.12.2012.

3. The case of the petitioner in a nut-shell is as follows:-

(a) The petitioner-Company had imported 760 Packages viz., 3800 Packets of Coated Gummed Paper from China at USD 11400.00 CIF Chennai. The above goods were shipped from M/s.Fancyco, China, vide Invoice No.FY122244, dated 19.11.2012 and filed Bill of Entry No.8711998, dated 10.12.2012 and claimed for clearance of goods for Home Consumption.

(b) On the arrival of the subject goods at Chennai Port, the petitioner filed Bill of Entry for Home Consumption and sought for clearance of the goods and they had declared the value of the goods at USD 11400.00 (CIF Chennai) totally. Thereafter, the petitioner had requested the respondents to pass orders for clearance of the imported goods. Subsequently, the goods were assessed by the Proper Officer and the appropriate duty of Rs.1,81,532/- as assessed by the Proper Officer has also been debited by the petitioner on 10.12.2012. After payment of duty, on 03.01.2013, the petitioner was informed that the goods have been detained by DRI Officers under Mahazar. The samples from the goods detained on 03.01.2013 were taken by DRI Officers in the presence of representatives.

(c) The petitioner, vide letter dated 12.01.2013 requested the Assistant Director of DRI to provisionally release the goods after taking of samples and weighment of goods. Undertaking was given to the Department that the petitioner will not dispute the quantity of the goods imported. This request was followed, vide other letters also. The petitioner's request for provisional release of goods was fully covered by Provisions of Section 110 A of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which inter alia provides that any goods seized under Section 110 of the Act may be provisionally released pending adjudication. However, till date no reply has been received from the DRI Officers. The petitioner's premises were searched by the DRI Officers and nothing incriminating was found. The DRI had issued summons on the partner of the petitioner and they appeared before the Officers, who took statement from the petitioner and they had also furnished Sales Contract made with the supplier for import of the above goods. The DRI officers thereafter, issued another summons to appear before them, for which the petitioner had asked for time.

(d) The DRI Officers classified the goods viz., Coated Gummed Paper under Custom Tariff Heading 48114100 which are freely importable and Coated Gummed Paper is one type of self-adhesive paper and these papers are used for creating label products. The self-adhesive paper as alleged by the Department is one and the same to that of the Coated Gummed Paper, which is also classifiable under CTH 48114100. Hence, the allegation of the third respondent that the value declared is less and the petitioner had mis-declared the goods and imported self-adhesive paper is not correct. The petitioner undertakes that they have fully co-operated in the investigation and will continue to do so. The continued seizure of goods is causing acute financial hardship, as the goods are incurring demurrage, interest on borrowed capital, besides deterioration in quality of Coated Gummed Paper, which is of perishable nature. The action of the respondents in not ordering the release of the goods is causing much prejudice t