Advocates:
['ANUJ AGRAWAL', 'A S G I', '', 'GAURAV MAHAJAN', 'SUDARSHAN SINGH']

Court No. - 39

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1123 of 2022

Petitioner :- M/S Unity Metalloys Llp

Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Agrawal

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gaurav Mahajan,Sudarshan Singh

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

Heard Sri Anuj Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent

department.

In the present writ petition the petitioner is challenging the

seizure memo dated 15.7.2022, whereby the goods comprising

of "Light Melting Iron and Steel Scrap for melting" imported at

the port of CFS M/s Star Track Terminal Pvt. Ltd. ICD Dadri

under Bill of Entry No.8984683 have been detained.

It is sought to be submitted that the seizure order is in

contravention of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.

It is submitted by Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the

respondent department that goods imported by the appellant are

prohibited in nature as per the import policy of the Government

of India. Such goods cannot be released provisionally under

Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 being prohibited in

nature and the release is subject to the outcome of the test of

sample take by the Custom Officer for the purpose of sending it

to the certified laboratory. It is further submitted that the

investigation in the case is still in progress and after following

the proper procedure and scheduled time period as per Customs

Act, 1962, a show cause notice will be issued to the petitioner

herein and the matter would be adjudicated after granting

opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in compliance

of the principles of natural justice. The attention of the Court is

invited to para '2' of the counter affidavit wherein the details

with regard to the procedure of seizure of goods and the

examination of the goods being prohibited has been given. It is

stated therein that after giving opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner a speaking order will be passed by the competent

adjudicating authority as soon as the investigation is concluded.

It is further pointed out that in the present writ petition, an issue

has been raised with regard to removal of the goods from the

container and storage of them in the warehouse in view of

Section 49 of Customs Act, 1962.

On the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on

the last three previous dates in this petition, that empty

containers are required to be returned back to the exporter and

the department is not allowing the petitioner/importer to remove

the goods from the container so as to take away the empty

containers and to resolve the dispute, we fixed dates for

appearance of the petitioner before the competent authority, i.e.

Officer of NOIDA Customs Commissionerate on 31.10.2022.

The dispute was again raised that though the petitioner had

appeared in the office of NOIDA Customs Commissionerate on

the date fixed but the process of removal of goods has not been

completed. The stand of the department is that the petitioner is

required to deposit the demurage charges and other charges for

removal of goods and storage of them in the warehouse in

accordance with Section 49 of Customs Act, 1962.

According to Sri Gaurav Mahajan, this writ petition has been

filed in order to evade the charges which is required to be

deposited by the petitioner to complete the process of removal

of goods from the containers. On 3.11.2022, noticing the above

contention of Sri Gaurav Mahajan, we granted time to the

petitioner to seek instructions and file rejoinder affidavit.

In the rejoinder affidavit, the dispute has again been raised with

regard to the validity of the order of seizure and action of the

respondent authority in seizure of the goods. But nothing has

been stated about the process of removal of goods from the

container and its storage in the warehouse or inclination to

deposit the demurage charges.