Detention and seizure of goods must be based on valid grounds, and reliance on test reports from non-accredited labs is insufficient for such actions.

COMMON ORDER

Challenging the proceedings of the original impugned orders passed by the third and fourth respondents in Detention Memo dated 22.09.2024 in File No.DRI/LZU/C1-26/Int-28/2024; the seizure Memo dated 16.11.2024 in File No.DRI/LZU/CI-26/Int.28/F/2024/1861-1868 and the summon dated 18.11.2024 in F.No.DRI/LZU/CI-26/Int. 28/F/2024/1874 and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to handover the documents to the fifth respondent to process the documents as per the related provisions of the Customs Act, Notifications, Rules, Circulars and Instructions or subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by this Court and also to issue a storage, detention cum demurrage waiver certificate with respect to the seized goods in terms of the provisions of the Handling of Cargo in Customs House Area Regulation, 2009 and the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transshipment Regulations, 2018 respectively for the period under detention/seizure, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition in W.P.No.27895 of 2024.

2. The petitioner in W.P.No.27615 of 2024, seeks a direction to the respondents 1 & 2 herein, to cause release of the goods covered under the 4502344 dated 15.07.2024 and 4502923 dated 15.07.2024 based on the test report of CRCL, New Delhi supra and also on the representation dated 16.10.2024 and the remaining goods covered under bills of entry No.5576076 to 5576078 dated 13.09.2024 & 5599773, 5616559, 5597675 dated 14.09.2024 and cause testing the same by the CRCL, New Delhi and to take decision on the release of the imported goods in terms of the Test Results or subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by this Court and also issue a storage, detention cum demurrage waiver certificate with respect of the seized goods in terms of the provisions of the Handling of Cargo in Customs House Area Regulation, 2009 and the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transshipment Regulations, 2018 respectively.

3. Heard Mr.Vijay Narayanan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.AR.L.Sundareshan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondents/Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, New Delhi; Principal Director General, DRI, New Delhi; Additional Director General [ADG] & Assistant Director [AD], DRI, New Delhi, as well as Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin.

4. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up and heard together and disposed of by way of a common order.

5. The brief facts which leads to the filing of the present Writ Petitions are as follows:-

5.1. The petitioner firm is in the business of import and local sale of betel nut products such as roasted betel nut, menthol scented supari etc., from the year 2020, which has registered with the GST authorities bearing GST Registration No.33ABFCS0068P1Z1 and has been allotted with Import Export Code by the office of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry through its Zonal Director of Foreign Trade, Chennai in No.ABFS0068P.

5.2. The petitioner firm have filed bills of entry Nos.4502344 dated 15.07.2024 & 4502923 dated 15.07.2024 for the import of roasted areca nuts split on the strength of the Advance Ruling No. ADV Ruling. CAAR/MUM/ARC/44 45 & 46/2022 dated 07.12.2022, which have been duly assessed by the respondent/Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin on first chec