Court rules detention of imported goods unauthorized; directs Customs to inspect & release goods upon payment.

The court found the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence's detention of imported goods without legal authority to be unauthorized. Customs were directed to inspect and release the goods upon payment of duty, as if a No-Objection Certificate was granted. The court ordered the DRI to provide a complete panchnama copy to the petitioner. It clarified that detention is not equivalent to seizure under the Customs Act, holding the DRI responsible for warehousing charges. Emphasizing the need for coordination between DRI and Customs, the court disposed of the petition, exempting the petitioner from warehousing charges.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Provisional release of imported goods.
2. Provision of panchnama copy.
3. Legality of detention vs. seizure of goods.
4. Responsibility for warehousing charges.
5. Coordination between DRI and Customs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Provisional Release of Imported Goods:
The petitioner sought the provisional release of goods imported under Bill of Entry (B/E) No. 5216412 dated 10th May 2016. The court found that the detention of goods by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) from 13th May 2016 onwards was without legal authority. Consequently, the Customs authorities were directed to inspect the goods, assess the B/E, and release the goods upon payment of the assessed duty by the petitioner. The Customs were to proceed as if the DRI had granted a No-Objection Certificate (NOC).

2. Provision of Panchnama Copy:
The petitioner requested a complete copy of the panchnama dated 12/13th May 2016. The court noted that while Annexure C of the panchnama was served to the petitioner, there was no proof that the entire panchnama was provided. The DRI was thus ordered to serve a complete copy of the panchnama to the petitioner.

3. Legality of Detention vs. Seizure of Goods:
The court emphasized that there is no provision in the Customs Act, 1962 that justifies the detention of goods without recording reasons. The DRI's action of detaining the goods was not equated with seizure under Section 110 of the Act. The court highlighted that seizure requires a proper officer to record reasons to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation. The panchnama alone did not constitute a valid seizure order, and thus, the detention was deemed unauthorized.

4. Responsibility for Warehousing Charges:
The court held that the petitioner could not be held responsible for warehousing charges resulting from the unauthorized detention of goods by the DRI. The DRI was made responsible for bearing the warehousing expenses.

5. Coordination between DRI and Customs:
The court suggested that detailed instructions need to be issued by the Customs in consultation with the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) to ensure proper coordination between the DRI and Customs. This would prevent indefinite detention of goods without legal authority in the future.

Conclusion:
The court ordered the Customs to complete the inspection and assessment of the B/E within two weeks and release the goods to the petitioner upon payment of the assessed duty. The petitioner was exempted from warehousing charges, which were to be borne by the DRI. The writ petition was disposed of with no orders as to costs.

---