Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 168
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
M/s. Radha Industries - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. No. 30338 of 2023 & W.M.P. Nos. 29923, 29921 of 2023
Decided On : 02-01-2024
For the Petitioner:Mukul Singla, Advocate. For the Respondent: R. Hemalatha, Senior standing counsel.
The court balanced revenue interest and expeditious clearance of goods by directing the completion of verification within a specified time and enabling clearance against a bond if verification was not completed within the specified time limit.
Headnote:
Customs Act - Provisional Assessment - Section 18, Section 28DA - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an importer of areca nuts, challenged the onerous conditions imposed during the provisional assessment of the goods imported from Sri Lanka under a free trade agreement. The petitioner sought the unconditional release of the goods.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the authorities to conclude the verification process within 30 days and release the goods without insisting on payment of duty if the certificate of origin was found to be genuine. If verification was not completed within the specified time, the petitioner would be entitled to provisional release of the goods on providing a bond for 100% of the value of goods.
Issues: Imposition of onerous conditions during provisional assessment, genuineness of the certificate of origin, and the balance between revenue interest and expeditious clearance of goods.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the revenue interest in ensuring genuine duty exemption with the petitioner's concern for expeditious clearance, directing the authorities to complete verification within 30 days and enabling clearance against a bond if verification was not completed within the specified time limit.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition by directing the authorities to conclude the verification process within 30 days and providing for provisional release of the goods if verification was not completed within the specified time.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent with respect to provisional assessment of Bill of Entry No.6570809 dated 24.06.2023 and quash the condition to furnish bank guarantee equal to 105% of the value of goods and bond equal to 100% of the value of goods which has been imposed, and consequently direct the respondents to immediately release the goods imported by the petitioner vide Bill of Entry No.6570809 dated 24.06.2023 unconditionally.)
1. The petitioner assails the conditions imposed in relation to the provisional assessment of Bill of Entry No.6570809 and seeks a consequential direction for the unconditional release of goods imported under the above mentioned Bill of Entry. 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30338 of 2023
2. The petitioner is an importer of areca nuts. According to the petitioner, areca nuts were imported from Sri Lanka under Bill of Entry No.6570809 on 24.06.2023. In accordance with the free trade agreement between India and Sri Lanka, it is stated that these goods are exempt from customs duty. For purposes of availing of such exemption, the petitioner states that a certificate of origin is required to be produced and that the petitioner produced such certificate of origin from the Department of Commerce, Sri Lanka. On the alleged ground that the certificate may not be genuine, the petitioner states that onerous conditions were imposed when the goods were provisionally assessed. The present writ petition was filed in the said facts and circumstances.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the certificate of origin and pointed out that the said certificate of origin contains a QR Code. Consequently, when a request was made for issuance of a verification certificate, the High Commission of Sri Lanka refused to do so by pointing out that the QR Code can be verified in real time. According to learned counsel, verification is not supposed to be undertaken on a mechanical basis and that the circular dated 17.08.2021 of the Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs specifies that it is not necessary to verify the origin of goods imported from the same manufacturer / producer unless the subsequent consignment was modified with regard to manufacturing or other origin related conditions.
4. Learned counsel also relied upon the following judgments:
1. Unique Spices v. Commissioner of Customs and another, (2019)9 GSTR – OL 28.
2. N and N Traders v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Others, (2023) SCC On line Madras 5900.
3. Chalissery Kirana Merchant & others v. Union of India & Others 2015(324) ELT 112 (Ker.) and pointed out that in all these cases the importer was permitted to clear the goods without providing a bank guarantee. Similarly, learned counsel submits that the petitioner may be permitted to clear the goods subject to provision of a bond but without insisting on a bank guarantee.
5. In response to these submissions Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned senior standing counsel, submits that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had noticed that certificates of origin in relation to imports from Sri Lanka were being fabricated. Consequently, it was decided that such certificates of origin would be subject to scrutiny before the relevant goods are cleared for home consumption.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that provisional assessment was undertaken in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Customs Act) and that clause (c) of sub-section (1) thereof enables further enquiry even in cases where the importer has produced all the necessary documents. By referring to Section 28DA of the Customs Act, learned counsel pointed out that sub-sections 4 and 5 thereof also enable verification and release of goods subject to furnishing by the importer of security for an amount equal to the diff
