Court orders release of imported goods due to importer's delay, not Department's actions. The court directed the first respondent to release the imported goods within two weeks, as the delay was due to the non-appearance of the IEC holder, not ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court orders release of imported goods due to importer's delay, not Department's actions.
The court directed the first respondent to release the imported goods within two weeks, as the delay was due to the non-appearance of the IEC holder, not the Department's actions. The court noted that the SIIB recommended the release in accordance with the law and was not investigating the case. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction, and no costs were imposed.
Issues: Prayer for mandamus to release imported goods under Bill of Entry No.6071428.
Analysis: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the goods imported via Bill of Entry No.6071428 dated 21.07.2016. The Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents presented written instructions from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, indicating that the goods were examined and discrepancies were found, such as excess weight in the container and discrepancies in dates. However, it was noted that the delay in release was due to the non-appearance of the IEC holder, not the Department's actions. The communication stated that the SIIB was not investigating the case and recommended the release of the goods in accordance with the law. Consequently, the court directed the first respondent to release the consignment within two weeks from the date of the order, considering the recommendation made by the SIIB and the absence of any ongoing investigation.
This judgment clarifies that the delay in releasing the goods was not attributable to the Department but rather to the non-appearance of the IEC holder. The court emphasized that the SIIB was not investigating the case and had recommended the release of the goods in compliance with the law. Therefore, the court ordered the first respondent to release the consignment within a specified timeframe, following the recommendation of the SIIB and the completion of necessary formalities. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed without imposing any costs.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
