Back
2021 Supreme(Tri) 205
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S. Talapatra, J.
Delwara Steel Industries Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Review Petn.17 of 2021
Decided On : 19-07-2021
Mr. N. Dasgupta, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Biswanath Majumder, CGC, Mr. P. Datta, Advocate, for the Respondent
Errors regarding customs verification processes can be corrected, highlighting the need for clarity in record-keeping and justifying verification procedures under customs law.
Headnote:(A) CAROTAR, 2020 - Rule 6(1)(b) and (c) - Customs Act, 1962 - Section 17 and 18 - A review application concerning the release of imported goods was allowed, correcting the reference to the Bill of Entry from 29.09.2020 to 17.12.2020, ruling that verification did not meet conditions for invoking Rule 6(1)(b) but was a random verification under Rule 6(1)(c), thus requiring no security deposition for release. (Paras 19, 20, 21)
(B) Judicial oversight - Errors apparent on the face of record can be corrected when factual confusion arises from extraneous references in judgments. The court expressed annoyance at the blending of facts relating to different Bills of Entry, stating that such inaccuracy can mislead judicial determination. (Paras 16, 18)
(C) Customs verification process - Proper officer must demonstrate good reason for verification under the customs laws; lack of such justification resulted in release order without security requirements. (Paras 13, 15)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petition basis relating to bill of entry errors. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's emphasis on inaccuracies in related documents. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. counsel’s submissions on typographical and substantive errors. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. clarification on rules surrounding verification processes. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. issues raised on procedural verification and its validity. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. error in prior judgment leading to new conclusions. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. final directive on releasing goods subject to verification. (Para 18 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
Seeking review of the judgment and order dated 26.04.2021 delivered in WP(C)No.110 of 2021, the writ petitioner, hereafter, referred to as the review petitioner, has filed this petition in tune with Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC. It has been asserted that for the averments made in the reply by the respondents No.2 and 3, some factual aspects relating to the previous consignment being Bill of Entry dated 29.09.2020 have messed with the fact relating to Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2020 [Annexure-1 to the review petition]. Intriguing construction of the reply and in their communication dated 20.12.2020 [Annexure-D to the objection filed by the respondents No.2 and 3, which is, however, Annexure-B to their reply in the said writ petition].
2. This Court in the said judgment observed that it has been found by the Customs that he [the petitioner] has made some inaccurate statement in respect of minimum value addition in Bangladesh. That apart, some components contributing to the price could not be figured out. Thus, the verification on deficiency is prima facie justified. Within a short while, the reason for warehousing has been disclosed to the petitioner. The petitioner was apprised of his right of exercising option for the provisional assessment of the duty subject to final decision. The petitioner therefore might get the imported goods released on furnishing the Bank Guarantee (BG) for an amount of Rs.12,74,031/-, but the petitioner has not done so in terms of the communication dated 17.10.2020 [Annexure-E to the reply]. In the facts and circumstances as surfaced, this court is not inclined to interfere in the manner, as asked for. The petitioner may take release of the imported goods covered by Bill of Entry No.659629/IMP/AGT-LCS/2020-2021 dated 29.09.2020 without prejudice to his claim. But he has to furnish security (bank guarantee or cash) for such release.
3. The review petitioner has categorically stated that the said observation as reproduced above has been made in the context of the previous Bill of Entry dated 29.09.2020 and that is not relevant for the Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2020. According to the review petitioner, it is for the intriguing way of placing their averments in respect of the Bill of Entry dated 29.09.2020, the fact relevant for the Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2020 got meshed. The review petitioner has emphatically stated that no verification has been initiated in respect of the Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2020. No record has been produced by the respondents No.2 and 3 in that regard. Even though, the following observation in the said judgment dated 26.04.2021 has been made in the context of the Bill of Entry dated 29.09.2020 :
“it has been found by the customs that he has made some inaccurate statement in respect of minimum value addition in Bangladesh. That apart, some components contributing to the price could not be figured out. Thus, the verification on deficiency is prima facie justified.”
4. The review petitioner has stated in the review petition that no particular deficiency in the Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2020 finds mention in the records nor any verification under Rule 6 of the CAROTAR, 2020 was initiated. For that error, This Court, according to the review petitioner, observed that the petitioner might get the imported goods released on furnishing the Bank Guarantee (BG) for an amount of Rs.12,74,031/-, but the petitioner has not done so in terms of the commun
