Court Upholds Seizure, Allows Export: Key Ruling on Imported Goods

The High Court upheld the legality of the seizure of imported goods as an interim measure pending investigation, rejecting the respondent's plea to quash the seizure memo. However, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed provisional release of the seized goods for export, emphasizing the goods' intended export nature and the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy. Despite objections to the maintainability of the writ application by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the High Court proceeded to hear the case. The Court permitted the respondent to re-export the goods under specific conditions, safeguarding both parties' interests without binding the DRI in future proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of seizure of imported goods.
2. Provisional release of seized goods for export.
3. Maintainability of the writ application by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).
4. Compliance with the Tribunal's order by the Customs authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Seizure of Imported Goods:
The respondent imported goods declared as "Naphtha" under CTH 27101229 at Kandla Port. The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, doubted the declaration and sent samples for testing, which revealed the goods as "Natural Gasoline Liquid." Consequently, the entire consignment was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent challenged the seizure in the High Court, seeking to quash the seizure memo and release the goods based on fresh test reports from the Indian Institute of Petroleum and Geo-Chem Laboratories, which confirmed the goods as Naphtha. The High Court rejected the application, stating that seizure was an interim measure pending investigation, and the issue involved disputed facts.

2. Provisional Release of Seized Goods for Export:
The respondent's application for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act was rejected. The respondent appealed to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed provisional release for export. The Tribunal noted that the goods were intended for export and withholding them would not prejudice the revenue. The Tribunal emphasized provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy and Hand Book Procedure, which discourage withholding export consignments and allow re-export of warehoused goods without customs duty. The Tribunal directed provisional release upon execution of a bond for the full value of the goods.

3. Maintainability of the Writ Application by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI):
The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the writ application's maintainability, arguing that an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act should be filed instead. The respondent also questioned the propriety of the writ application being affirmed by an Assistant Director of DRI, subordinate to the Commissioner of Customs. The High Court noted these objections but proceeded to hear the writ application on its merits.

4. Compliance with the Tribunal's Order by the Customs Authorities:
The respondent filed a Miscellaneous application for the implementation of the Tribunal's order, which the Tribunal directed to be complied with immediately. The DRI challenged the Tribunal's order in the High Court, arguing that Section 110A does not allow provisional release for export and that the goods are liable to confiscation. The High Court acknowledged the need to protect both parties' interests and permitted the respondent to re-export the goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 15 Crore by 31.01.2022. The Court allowed the re-export using the nomenclature "Naphtha" without binding the DRI or entitling the respondent to raise a plea of estoppel in future proceedings.

Conclusion:
The High Court balanced the interests of both the respondent and the DRI by allowing the re-export of goods under specific conditions while ensuring that the DRI's rights to pursue confiscation proceedings were preserved. The Court's interim order aimed to mitigate potential irreparable injury to the respondent while safeguarding the revenue's interests.

---