Importer cannot claim entitlement under 2008 notification while ignoring subsequent 2012 and 2017 notifications for Gold Dore bars

Delhi HC disposed of petition regarding seizure of imported Gold Dore bars. Petitioner claimed entitlement to import under 2008 notification but never sought amendment of import conditions when subsequent 2012 and 2017 notifications were issued. Court held petitioner cannot now contend later notifications don't apply, rejecting argument for import solely under 2008 notification. Since customs duty was paid under protest and provisional release application filed, court directed respondent to consider and dispose of provisional release application within three weeks. All parties' contentions on merits kept open.

---

---

Issues:
The validity of the seizure memo dated 26 December 2022 regarding the import of "Gold Dore" bars.

Summary:
The petitioner applied for import permission before the Exim Facilitation Committee, which granted permission for the import of 5 MT of Gold Dore bars subject to specific conditions. The petitioner was required to comply with Custom Notification No.12/2012 and RBI notifications.

The imported Gold Dore bars were seized by the respondents for not meeting weight specifications and exceeding the maximum purity limit of 95%. The seizure was based on the conditions set out in the notification of 17 March 2012.

The petitioner argued that a 2008 exemption notification for imports from "least developed countries" applied, as it had not been rescinded or superseded by later notifications. However, the Court held that the petitioner was bound by the conditions of the 2012 and 2017 notifications, which superseded the 2008 notification.

The Court found that the petitioner failed to seek an amendment to the import permission conditions and was therefore obligated to comply with the 2017 notification regarding weight and purity requirements for Gold Dore bars.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) extended the period of seizure under the Customs Act, 1962, and was finalizing a show cause notice. The petitioner was advised to address all contentions before the DRI and had the right to challenge the findings on weight and purity.

The petitioner had paid the customs duty under protest and applied for provisional release of the goods, which was pending consideration. The Court directed the second respondent to expedite the consideration of the application within three weeks.

In conclusion, the petition and pending application were disposed of based on the above terms, with all contentions of the parties kept open for further consideration.

---