2016 (7) TMI 1611 - HC - Customs

Court Orders Release of Seized Goods; Customs Dept Criticized for Non-Compliance

SAI INCORPORATION Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) & ORS.

The Court ordered the immediate unconditional release of goods seized under a panchnama to the Petitioner due to the absence of a show cause notice within ... Seeking unconditional release of imported goods - non-issuance of SCN within the mandatory time limit in terms of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The Court is constrained to observe that there was no occasion for multiplicity of proceedings arising from the order dated 2nd June 2016 passed by this Court. If the Customs Department was aggrieved by any portion of that order, it could have proceeded to seek whatever remedies were available to it in accordance with law. There being no challenge to that order, the Department was bound to comply with it in letter and spirit - the Court directs that, in immediate compliance of its order dated 2nd June 2016, the goods in question shall be released to the Petitioner by the Customs Department unconditionally to the Petitioner through its authorized representative who will appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs at 11 am on 23rd July 2016. The Petitioner will furnish to the Deputy Commissioner Customs an undertaking by way of affidavit to fully cooperate in any proceedings that may be commenced under Section 124 of CA. List on 29th August 2016. Issues:Unconditional release of seized goods, Compliance with court order, Re-assessment of goods without proper notice, Contempt petition filed by Petitioner, Multiplicity of proceedings, Compliance with court directions for release of goods, Explanation for re-assessment of goods, Filing of affidavit by Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Compliance affidavit by Respondent.Unconditional Release of Seized Goods:The Petitioner filed a petition seeking unconditional release of goods seized under a panchnama. The Court, in a detailed order, noted the absence of a show cause notice within the mandated time limit and directed the immediate unconditional release of the goods to the Petitioner. Despite this, the directions were not adhered to by the Customs Department, leading to further legal action by the Petitioner.Compliance with Court Order:The Court emphasized the importance of compliance with its orders, stating that the Customs Department was obligated to adhere to the directive for the unconditional release of goods. The failure to comply resulted in the Court issuing additional directions for the immediate release of the goods and requiring the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to provide an explanation for the non-compliance.Re-assessment of Goods Without Proper Notice:The Deputy Commissioner of Customs unilaterally re-assessed the goods and demanded payment of differential duty without issuing a show cause notice to the Petitioner. This unilateral action was deemed improper by the Court, highlighting the necessity for procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements.Contempt Petition Filed by Petitioner:In response to the non-compliance with the court order, the Petitioner filed a contempt petition, signaling the seriousness of the issue and the need for strict adherence to judicial directives by the concerned authorities.Multiplicity of Proceedings:The Court criticized the Customs Department for initiating multiple proceedings instead of following the directives of the initial order. It stressed that if aggrieved by any part of the order, the Department should have pursued legal remedies rather than deviating from the prescribed course of action.Explanation for Re-assessment of Goods:The Deputy Commissioner of Customs was directed to provide a detailed explanation for the re-assessment of the goods without proper notice to the Petitioner. The Court sought clarification on the basis for re-assessment and emphasized the necessity of following due process in such matters.Filing of Affidavits and Compliance:The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to file an affidavit explaining the re-assessment process and ordered the Respondent to file a compliance affidavit in adherence to the Court's directives. These measures aimed to ensure transparency, accountability, and procedural regularity in the handling of the case.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of judicial orders, the need for strict compliance with legal procedures, and the importance of upholding principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in administrative actions.