High Court allows amendment to challenge Provisional Release Orders for goods under Schedule C, emphasizing compliance and thorough assessment.

Videojet Technologies (I) Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Imports) NS III & Another

Videojet Technologies (I) Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Imports) NS III & Another - TMI Issues:
1. Challenge to Provisional Release Orders
2. Interpretation of Schedule C of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013
3. Requirement of No Objection Certificate for controlled substances
4. Granting of interim relief

Analysis:

1. The High Court addressed the challenge to Provisional Release Orders dated 14th November, 2017 and 23rd November, 2017. The petitioner sought to amend the petition to challenge these orders and seek appropriate interim relief. The Court granted leave for the amendment and allowed the petitioner to seek interim relief regarding these orders.

2. The dispute revolved around whether certain goods fell under Schedule C of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013. The petitioner argued that the goods did not fall under any category in Schedule C, including item 10 of Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK). The Court highlighted that if the goods were covered by Schedule C, they would require a No Objection Certificate from the Narcotics Commissioner for import.

3. The Court noted that the requirement of a No Objection Certificate was crucial for goods falling under Schedule C. The petitioner sought relief from the requirement, but the Court emphasized that no relief could be granted until a final decision was made on whether the goods were covered by Schedule C. The Court highlighted that the provisions of the Order of 2013 mandated obtaining a No Objection Certificate for importing controlled substances specified in Schedule C.

4. Regarding interim relief, the Court clarified that relief could only be considered for goods where provisional release had been permitted. The Court emphasized that interim relief prayers related to goods covered by provisional release would be addressed after the necessary amendments were made. Additionally, the Court allowed for further amendments to challenge any subsequent provisional release orders if the petitioner was aggrieved.

Overall, the judgment focused on the challenge to Provisional Release Orders, the interpretation of Schedule C, the requirement of a No Objection Certificate for controlled substances, and the granting of interim relief based on the specific goods covered by provisional release. The Court highlighted the importance of complying with the regulations concerning controlled substances and emphasized the need for a thorough assessment before granting any interim relief.