2016 (10) TMI 862 - HC - Customs

Customs Confiscation Overturned: Goods Classification Dispute Resolved

M/s. Green India Enterprises Versus The Commissioner of Customs, The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Group-5)

The Court granted the petitioner's request for a Writ of Mandamus to release goods under a specific Bill of Entry. The goods, initially classified as ... Writ of Mandamus - Release of the goods - Classification - Confiscation - Bird Scare Device - Whether the goods in question would come under the ambit of 'Arms and Ammunition' - Held that: - Department is willing to undertake an exercise of getting the goods examined by the Forensic Department and seek co-operation of the petitioner - Based on the report submitted by the Forensic Science Department, the second respondent shall pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the report - Petition is disposed of. Issues:1) Petition seeking Writ of Mandamus to release goods under Bill of Entry.2) Disagreement on classification of imported goods.3) Confiscation of goods and appeal process.4) Determination of goods falling under 'Arms and Ammunition'.Analysis:1) The petitioner requested a Writ of Mandamus to release goods under a specific Bill of Entry. The goods were declared as 'Bird Scare Device' for agricultural use, but the Department disagreed on the classification, citing concerns about noise pollution and restrictions under the Arms Act and Environment Protection Act.2) The goods were confiscated initially, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai. The Commissioner reviewed the case and overturned the order of absolute confiscation, indicating that the correct classification was not what the Department had initially determined.3) The crucial issue arose regarding whether the imported goods could be classified as 'Arms and Ammunition.' The Court directed the Department to involve the Forensic Science Department for testing and inspection to determine the classification accurately. The Department expressed willingness to conduct the necessary examination with the cooperation of the petitioner.4) The petitioner agreed to provide the required information for testing, and the Department was instructed to notify the petitioner for further instructions and sample collection. Upon receiving the report from the Forensic Science Department, the Department was directed to make a decision within three weeks. The Writ Petition was disposed of with these directions, emphasizing cooperation between the parties for the testing process and subsequent decision-making.