Court Upheld Order Denying Release of Seized Goods Due to Mis-Declaration The court upheld Ext.P14 order refusing provisional release of seized goods declared as 'Animal Feed Compound (Residue of Coconut)' due to doubts on ...
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 Upheld Order Denying Release of Seized Goods Due to Mis-Declaration
The court upheld Ext.P14 order refusing provisional release of seized goods declared as "Animal Feed Compound (Residue of Coconut)" due to doubts on classification as 'copra.' The petitioner's request was denied as clearance permission from the State Trading Corporation was lacking. Allegations of mis-declaration under Customs Act, 1962 were made. The court allowed appeal under Section 128 but refrained from interference due to disputed facts. The petitioner was granted exclusion of time for filing an appeal within three weeks. The petitioner was directed to appeal before the Appellate Authority for consideration on merits, with liberty to present all contentions.
Issues: Challenge to Ext.P14 order refusing provisional release of seized goods.
Analysis: The petitioner challenged Ext.P14 order dated 9-4-2021, which refused provisional release of seized goods declared as "Animal Feed Compound (Residue of Coconut)." The goods were subjected to a restraint order due to doubts regarding whether they were 'copra.' The department alleged mis-declaration, leading to the restraint order.
The petitioner sought provisional release of the goods, but it was denied as the goods required permission from the State Trading Corporation for clearance, which the petitioner had not obtained. The respondents initiated proceedings under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, issuing a show cause notice and alleging mis-declaration by the petitioner to benefit from lower duty on animal feeds.
The Court noted that Ext.P14 order could be appealed under Section 128 of the Act and refrained from interference due to disputed facts. However, to prevent prejudice, the petitioner was allowed to exclude the period from filing the writ petition till the judgment for condoning limitation if an appeal is filed within three weeks. The petitioner was directed to appeal before the Appellate Authority, which should then consider the appeal on merits.
The writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to present all contentions before the Appellate Authority.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
