The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner was entitled to the unconditional release of the imported goods under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, and the provisions of Section 110(2) in relation to the time limit for holding seized goods were deemed mandatory.

The above Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the imported goods viz., “LED Spare Parts for lighting fixtures, Spare Parts for lighting fixtures and Capacitor for lighting fixtures” covered under the Bill of Entry dated 15.04.2015 in terms of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. According to the petitioner, they sought to import “LED Spare Parts for lighting fixtures, Spare Parts for lighting fixtures and Capacitors for lighting fixtures” from M/s. Zhongshan Zeda Lighting Company Limited, China. The said consignment was loaded vide Bill of Lading dated 04.04.2015 and covered by invoice dated 02.04.2015. The petitioner, on arrival of the consignment, filed Bill of Entry with the Office of the 3rd respondent for assessment and clearance of the goods vide Bill of Entry dated 15.04.2015. The said Bill of Entry was taken up for assessment by the Appraising Group attached to the Office of the 3rd respondent, who ordered for the examination of the goods. In the meanwhile, the Officer attached to the 2nd respondent took the subject Bill of Entry for investigation and also examined the goods. On examination, the Officers attached to the 2nd respondent found that the goods were in order. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued summons dated 26.06.2015 under Section 108 of the Customs Act for appearance of the petitioner before him on 04.07.2015. The petitioner, by letter dated 07.07.2015, addressed to the 2nd respondent, sought for provisional release of the goods, informing him that the goods are likely to get spoiled. The provisional release was sought in terms of Section 110-A of the Customs Act read with Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations 1963.

3. According to the petitioner, as per Section 110-A of the Customs Act, the 2nd respondent should have provisionally released the goods. Since the 2nd respondent did not consider the petitioner's application for provisional release, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 22173 of 2015 to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to assess and clear the imported goods in terms of Section 110-A of the Customs Act read with Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations 1963 as amended by the 2011 Regulations. This Court, by order dated 17.08.2015, disposed of the Writ Petition by permitting the petitioner to file an application within one week for the release of the goods and directed the 2nd respondent to assess the goods and pass orders within three weeks. Thereafter, by letter dated 07.10.2015, the respondent informed the petitioner that the Adjudicating Authority had accepted their request for provisional release of the goods in terms of Section 110-A of the Customs Act subject to the conditions that they should execute a bond for the full value of the goods (i.e.) Rs.96,12,271/- and on execution of the Bank Guarantee for Rs.28,61,358/- (i.e.) 110% of the estimated duty evasion amount.

4. According to the petitioner, the value of the impugned goods could never be Rs.96,12,271/-. According to the petitioner, they are victimized by the respondent for the reason that they knocked at the doors of this Court. According to the petitioner, as per the judicial pronouncements including those of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Court, it has been categorically held that the differential duty payable for the provisional release in terms of Section 110-A of the Customs Act read with Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations can be only between 30% to 50% of the differential duty apart from the execution of a Personal Bond for the value of the goods. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the order passed by the respondent to execute the Bank Guarantee to the extent of 110% of the estimated differential duty is unsustainable. Further, the petitioner contended that in respect of the goods under seizure in terms of Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, the respondents should