Court quashes Seizure Memo for misdeclared imported goods, orders release with Bank Guarantee

The court disposed of the writ petition challenging the Seizure Memo concerning misdeclaration of imported goods. The petitioner sought to quash the Seizure Memo issued for Hot Rolled Steel Coil Grade API 5L Gr B, misdeclared as grade "SS 400" to evade safeguards duty. The court ordered the release of the goods upon the petitioner providing a Bank Guarantee, emphasizing compliance with legal procedures and safeguards.

---

---

Issues:
- Writ petition to challenge Seizure Memo
- Misdeclaration of imported goods
- Seizure of goods
- Release of goods with Bank Guarantee

Writ Petition to Challenge Seizure Memo:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to challenge the Seizure Memo issued by the third respondent. The impugned Seizure Memo dated 04.03.2016 was issued concerning the import of Hot Rolled Steel Coil Grade API 5L Gr B. The petitioner contended that the goods were misdeclared to evade safeguards duty, as they were labeled as grade "SS 400" instead of the declared grade. The petitioner sought to quash the Seizure Memo.

Misdeclaration of Imported Goods:
The petitioner had imported Hot Rolled Steel Coil Grade API 5L Gr B through a bill of entry dated 11.01.2016. The goods were declared as per the invoice from the foreign supplier, matching the purchase order. All duties were paid, and the goods were cleared for domestic consumption after receiving permission from the Proper Officer of Customs. However, upon examination by the respondents, it was discovered that the steel coils were labeled as grade "SS 400," leading to the allegation of misdeclaration to avoid safeguards duty.

Seizure of Goods:
Following the examination, the respondents seized the goods imported on 11.01.2016 through a Seizure Memo dated 04.03.2016. Additionally, goods imported earlier on 25.11.2015 were also seized based on similar misdeclaration concerns. The petitioner challenged the seizure memo through the writ petition, leading to discussions on the release of the goods during the court proceedings.

Release of Goods with Bank Guarantee:
During the court hearing, agreements were reached for the release of the goods. The petitioner agreed to provide a Bank Guarantee of a specified amount for the release of the entire quantity of steel coils. The Additional Solicitor General highlighted the necessity of the Bank Guarantee for securing the amount in case of liability. The court directed the petitioner to furnish the Bank Guarantee, ensuring its validity until the completion of adjudication proceedings. The court ordered the release of the goods within three days of providing the Bank Guarantee, emphasizing that the writ petition's order would not hinder the adjudication process.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, instructing the release of the goods upon the submission of the Bank Guarantee, with no costs incurred. The judgment aimed to balance the interests of the petitioner and the authorities while ensuring compliance with legal procedures and safeguards.

---