TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders release of imported goods, petitioner paid customs duty, no grounds for detention</h1> <h3>M/s. Bluemax Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs</h3> M/s. Bluemax Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs - TMI Issues:1. Detention and seizure of imported goods.2. Allegation of mis-declaration of goods' value.3. Show cause notice for confiscation and imposition of penalties.4. Request for provisional release of goods.5. Compliance with conditions for release.Detention and Seizure of Imported Goods:The petitioner imported CARLVO Dual Sim Chinese Cellular Phones and declared the value at Rs.2,06,16,882 for duty assessment. However, the goods were detained and seized under a mahazar dated 9.12.2011 by customs authorities, alleging mis-declaration. The petitioner argued that there was no mis-declaration as claimed in the show cause notice issued by the first respondent.Allegation of Mis-declaration of Goods' Value:The respondents contended that the petitioner mis-declared the retail selling price of the imported goods through the Chennai Sea Port to evade actual Customs Duty. They claimed that the petitioner had declared different prices for similar goods imported through different ports, indicating mala fide intentions. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for this alleged mis-declaration.Show Cause Notice for Confiscation and Imposition of Penalties:The show cause notice dated 4.4.2012 required the petitioner to justify why the imported goods should not be confiscated for wrong declaration under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, the notice proposed revising the declared value, collecting differential Countervailing Duty, and imposing penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.Request for Provisional Release of Goods:The petitioner sought the provisional release of the goods, stating that they had paid the entire Customs Duty based on the enhanced value assessed by authorities. The petitioner argued that after such payment, the respondents had no grounds to further detain the goods based on the alleged mis-declaration.Compliance with Conditions for Release:The petitioner agreed to comply with all necessary conditions for the provisional release of the goods, including participating in the adjudication process, filing replies to the show cause notice, and executing a personal bond as required by authorities. The petitioner emphasized that the goods were not prohibited and requested release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.The Court, after considering arguments from both parties and reviewing the records, noted that the petitioner had paid the entire customs duty on the enhanced value assessed. It directed the respondents to provisionally release the CARLVO Dual Sim Chinese Cellular Phones within ten days, subject to the adjudication process initiated by authorities. The Court found no grounds for further detention as the goods were not prohibited, and the petitioner was willing to comply with all necessary requirements for release. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed, closing the connected miscellaneous petition.
TaxTMI 