2021 (7) TMI 860 - HC - Customs

Court confirms Customs decision on 'Hand Mixer' goods, directs statutory appeal process

The High Court upheld the Commissioner of Customs' decision to confiscate goods imported as 'Hand Mixer,' deemed as 'Hand Held Blenders,' under the ... Confiscation of imported goods - Hand Mixer and its spare parts - import objected to by the Customs on the ground that the goods imported were not ‘Hand Mixer’ but were ‘Hand Held Blenders’ - section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 - penalty u/s 112(a) of the Act - HELD THAT:- The judgment does not warrant any interference. Appellant has only been relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal. No prejudice is caused on account of the said relegation. No circumstance exist for this Court to interfere in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 - The apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Appellate Tribunal has not started its sittings after the lock-down, have been countered by the learned Standing Counsel, who pointed out that the Tribunal has in fact started its sitting and are hearing matters listed before it. The appellate remedy is therefore efficacious. The appellant are directed to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Confiscation of goods imported under the title 'Hand Mixer' objected by Customs.2. Imposition of penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Dismissal of writ petition due to alternate remedy of appeal under section 129A(1) of the Act.Confiscation of Goods:The appellant imported goods under the title 'Hand Mixer,' but Customs claimed they were 'Hand Held Blenders.' The Commissioner of Customs directed confiscation of the goods and allowed redemption on payment of a fine under section 125 of the Customs Act. A penalty was also imposed under section 112(a) of the Act.Imposition of Penalty:The appellant challenged the Commissioner's order through a writ petition. The single Judge dismissed the petition citing the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal under section 129A(1) of the Act. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found no grounds to interfere with the judgment, stating that the appellant had been directed to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal, causing no prejudice. The Court declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.Dismissal of Writ Petition:The appellant's concern regarding the Appellate Tribunal's functioning post-lockdown was addressed by the Standing Counsel, confirming the Tribunal had resumed hearings. The Court directed the appellant to file an appeal before the Tribunal within a week. If an appeal is lodged, the Tribunal was instructed to expedite the proceedings after hearing all concerned parties. The writ appeal was dismissed with these instructions.