2011 (3) TMI 1271 - HC - Customs

Court rules in favor of petitioner, finding seizure unjustified under Customs Act. Interim relief granted.

The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the seizure of goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act was not justified. It held that the ... Confiscation - Misdeclaration - it was submitted that Supplementary Vegetable Tanning Agents, are allowed to be imported on actual user condition and that the petitioner not being an actual user, is even otherwise not entitled to import the said goods under the DFIA Schenne - Held that:- A perusal of the Bill of Entry annexed along with the affidavit-in-reply indicates that the petitioner has described the subject goods as Beetle Nut Industrial Grade and has also indicated the Tariff Heading under which the same are classifiable - all that the petitioner has done is that it has made a claim that it is entitled to exemption of duty in respect of the goods imported by it under the DFIA Scheme on the ground that Areca Nut would stand covered under Item No. 12(c)(i) of the group G-7 of the SION - prima facie, the provisions of Section 111 of the Act would not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently, it cannot be said that there is any material on the basis of which the proper officer could form the requisite belief that the subject goods are liable to seizure under Section 110 of the Act - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of direction to deposit 50% in cash and balance by way of bank guarantee Issues:Seizure of goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962; Misdeclaration in Bill of Entry leading to confiscation under Section 111(m) and (o) of the Act; Claim of exemption under DFIA Scheme; Prima facie belief for seizure; Interim relief and conditions for release of seized goods.Seizure of Goods under Section 110:The petitioner challenged the seizure of goods, arguing that it was not warranted as per Section 110 of the Customs Act. The petitioner claimed that the goods did not fall under any category listed in Section 111 for confiscation. The petitioner asserted that there was no misrepresentation in the Bill of Entry and that claiming exemption under the DFIA licenses did not constitute misdeclaration under the Act. The respondents contended that the petitioner's claim of exemption amounted to misdeclaration, justifying seizure under Section 110. The Court analyzed the provisions and previous judgments to determine if the seizure was justified under the Act.Misdeclaration in Bill of Entry - Section 111(m) and (o) of the Act:The respondents argued that the petitioner's claim of exemption under the DFIA Scheme in the Bill of Entry constituted misdeclaration under Section 111(m) of the Act. The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision to ascertain the definition of misdeclaration in such cases. The Court found that the petitioner's claim for exemption based on its belief did not amount to misdeclaration under the Act. The Court also discussed the applicability of Section 111(o) regarding goods exempted subject to conditions, concluding that it did not apply in this case.Prima Facie Belief for Seizure:The Court examined whether there was sufficient material for the proper officer to form a belief that the seized goods were liable for confiscation under Section 110 of the Act. The Court determined that the provisions of Section 111 were not attracted in the present case, and there was no basis for the officer's belief to justify the seizure. The Court distinguished a previous Supreme Court judgment cited by the respondents, stating it was not applicable in the current scenario.Interim Relief and Conditions for Release of Seized Goods:After considering the arguments and facts presented, the Court granted interim relief to the petitioner. The Court suspended the seizure memo and panchnama, allowing the petitioner to clear the goods under specific conditions. The petitioner was required to pay a portion of the customs duty and provide a bank guarantee. The Court outlined the conditions for release of the seized goods, emphasizing that the order was passed without prejudice to the rights of the parties.In conclusion, the Court analyzed the legality of the seizure, misdeclaration in the Bill of Entry, the applicability of relevant sections of the Customs Act, and granted interim relief with specific conditions for the release of the seized goods.