Court directs provisional release of goods without MRP for smaller quantities, bond required for larger quantities

The Court directed the provisional release of goods covered under a Bill of Entry, specifically Axe Oil, without the requirement of MRP declaration for smaller quantities. It instructed the Department to verify the need for MRP declaration in containers with larger quantities. The Court clarified that conditions imposed by the respondents should align with its directions, requiring a bond and Bank Guarantee only for larger quantities. The Court emphasized provisional release of seized goods upon compliance with conditions, leaving the classification of goods to be determined during adjudication proceedings. The Writ Petition was disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Release of goods covered under Bill of Entry, Requirement of MRP declaration for imported products, Scope of direction issued by the Court, Conditions imposed by the respondents, Provisional release of seized goods, Adjudication proceedings.

Release of Goods Covered Under Bill of Entry:
The petitioner sought release of goods covered under Bill of Entry No.5569500 dated 09.06.2016, specifically Axe Oil in different containers imported from Singapore. The Court issued an interim direction considering the submissions made by both parties. The petitioner contended that MRP declaration is not required for smaller quantities, and requested provisional release for higher quantities. The Court directed the respondents to examine the need for MRP declaration in the containers and ordered for release of items without such requirement for smaller quantities.

Requirement of MRP Declaration for Imported Products:
The Department was instructed to verify if MRP or RSP needs to be declared in all containers of the imported product, particularly focusing on containers with larger quantities from 10ml. The petitioner argued that MRP declaration was unnecessary for bottles of 10ml or less. The Court emphasized that appropriate orders for release should be issued if no MRP declaration was required for smaller quantities, granting discretion to the respondents for larger quantities.

Scope of Direction Issued by the Court:
The respondents issued an order directing the petitioner to execute a bond and a Bank Guarantee, but the Court noted that the respondents did not fully understand the Court's direction. The Court clarified that the bond and Bank Guarantee conditions were to cover larger quantities only, and not for containers below 28ml. The Court emphasized that the conditions imposed should align with the Court's direction.

Conditions Imposed by the Respondents:
The learned Standing Counsel for the revenue argued that the conditions imposed were to cover larger quantities and requested time to file a detailed counter affidavit. However, the Court refused to grant more time, stating that a counter affidavit cannot introduce new reasons not contained in the impugned order. The Court upheld that the conditions should be in line with the Court's direction.

Provisional Release of Seized Goods:
Considering the consignment had been held in customs since June 2016, the Court directed the petitioner to execute a bond and furnish a Bank Guarantee. Upon compliance, the respondents were directed to provisionally release the seized goods under the Customs Act within a week. The Court clarified that it did not delve into the classification of the imported goods, leaving it to the department during adjudication proceedings.

Adjudication Proceedings:
The Court disposed of the Writ Petition without costs, ensuring provisional release of the goods upon compliance with the bond and Bank Guarantee conditions. The Court emphasized that the department could take appropriate action regarding the classification of the goods during the ongoing adjudication proceedings. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.

---