2022 (2) TMI 910 - HC - Customs

Court Upheld Order Denying Release of Seized Goods Due to Mis-Declaration

SAIDALAVI K.C. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

The court upheld Ext.P14 order refusing provisional release of seized goods declared as 'Animal Feed Compound (Residue of Coconut)' due to doubts on ... Rejection of provisional release of seized goods - allegation of mis-declaration of goods - import of Animal Feed Compound (Residue of Coconut) - whether the goods imported were ‘copra’ or not? - Confiscation - restraint order - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the fact that Ext.P14 order can be subjected to an appeal under Section 128 of the Act and also in view of the disputed questions of fact involved in this case, this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to interfere. However, since the petitioner has moved this Court through this writ petition on 20-4-2021 itself, petitioner is entitled to exclude the period from 20-4-2021 till today in pursuing this writ petition, for the purpose of condoning the limitation, as otherwise prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. If the petitioner files an appeal under Section 128 of the Act before the Appellate Authority within a period of three weeks from today, the said Appellate Authority shall condone the delay and consider the appeal on merits - this writ petition is disposed of reserving the liberty of the petitioner to raise all contentions before the Appellate Authority. 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.