Court dismisses writ petitions challenging goods confiscation under Bill of Entry, stresses statutory appeal process.

The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the confiscation of goods under the Bill of Entry, emphasizing the need to exhaust appeal remedies provided under the Customs Act before approaching the High Court. The court highlighted the importance of following the statutory appeal process and natural justice principles, ultimately ruling against the petitioner's request for unconditional and provisional release of the confiscated goods.

---

---

Issues:
1. Unconditional release of goods confiscated under Bill of Entry dated 22.10.2013.
2. Provisional release of goods confiscated absolutely contrary to law.
3. Extension of time for issuance of show cause notice under Customs Act.
4. Availability of appeal remedy before approaching the High Court.

Issue 1: Unconditional release of goods confiscated under Bill of Entry dated 22.10.2013.
The petitioner, engaged in importing cosmetics, faced confiscation of goods declared in Bill of Entry dated 22.10.2013. The Customs Authorities seized the goods, alleging non-declaration and concealment. The petitioner contended that the overseas supplier's mistake led to the discrepancy in declared value. Despite seeking unconditional release based on the Customs Act's time limits for issuing show cause notices, the authorities extended the period, leading to the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.06.2014 through a writ petition.

Issue 2: Provisional release of goods confiscated absolutely contrary to law.
The petitioner sought provisional release of the confiscated goods under Bill of Entry dated 22.10.2013. However, the second respondent confirmed the show cause notice proposal without considering the petitioner's submissions. This led to the petitioner filing a writ petition challenging the order dated 09.09.2015, emphasizing the need for provisional release pending adjudication.

Issue 3: Extension of time for issuance of show cause notice under Customs Act.
The respondents argued that the Commissioner of Customs had the authority to extend the time for issuing show cause notices under the Customs Act, citing the mahazar dated 03.12.2013. They contended that the petitioner failed to exhaust appeal remedies before challenging the adjudication order in court, emphasizing the importance of following the statutory appeal process.

Issue 4: Availability of appeal remedy before approaching the High Court.
The court highlighted that the Customs Act provided specific provisions for appealing against impugned orders under sections 128 and 129A. The respondents argued that without exhausting the appeal remedies, the petitioner should not approach the High Court through writ petitions. The court emphasized the importance of following the appeal process and natural justice principles before resorting to writ petitions.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the availability of appeal remedies under the Customs Act and the importance of following the statutory appeal process before approaching the High Court.

---