TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Orders Expedited Release of Imported Goods, Emphasizing Perishable Nature</h1> The High Court granted the petitioner's writ, quashing the order rejecting the release of imported goods. Emphasizing the perishable nature of the goods ... Seeking provisional release of de-stuffed imported perishable goods - Defatted Coconut - classified as Tariff Item/CTH 23065020 or not - HELD THAT:- This Court has categorically granted liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an application for provisional release of the imported goods and by directing expedited decision on such application, since the subject goods are perishable in nature. In the light of the specific direction issued by this Court and liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to file an application under Section 110A of the Customs Act, the respondents clearly misdirected itself in refusing to pass an order of release on the ground that the adjudicating authority had already passed an order against the petitioner by relying upon the order dated 31.12.2021 referred to in paragraph-3 of the impugned order, without appreciating that the same does not pertain to the adjudication proceedings in relation to the petitioner, since the same had already culminated in the order at Annexure- P dated 10.03.2021 itself, much prior to 31.12.2021. It is also relevant to state that though Section 110A of the Act refers to the proceedings before the adjudicating officer, in the light of the undisputed fact that the appeal had been preferred by the petitioner and a further appeal preferred by the respondents are merely continuation of the original adjudication proceedings, the respondents clearly erred in coming to the conclusion that the provisional release under Section 110A of the Act is permissible only when the proceedings are pending before the adjudicating officer and as such, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. The respondents are directed to release the subject goods in favour of the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the petitioner complying with the requirement of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Petition allowed. Issues:1. Petitioner seeking writ to quash impugned order rejecting application for release of imported goods.2. Petitioner seeking writ for costs and damages incurred.3. Consideration of writs, orders, and directions for relief in the interest of justice.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought a writ to quash the order rejecting the application for the release of imported perishable goods. The petitioner had previously obtained a favorable order in an appeal, but the respondents did not comply with the release requests. The High Court noted that the petitioner had the right to seek provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application for provisional release, emphasizing the perishable nature of the goods and the need for an expedited decision. The respondents erred in rejecting the application, considering the previous appeal outcomes and the absence of an interim order in the pending appeal by the revenue.2. Additionally, the petitioner sought a writ for costs and damages incurred. The respondents contended that the petitioner's appeal was pending before the Tribunal, and therefore, the adjudicating authority could not direct provisional release. However, the High Court clarified that the petitioner had the right to seek release under Section 110A, irrespective of the appeal status. The Court found the respondents' interpretation of the Act erroneous and directed the release of goods to the petitioner within a week, subject to compliance with statutory requirements.3. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the release of goods to the petitioner. The release was subject to compliance with the Customs Act and without prejudice to the ongoing appeal by the revenue. The Court kept all contentions in the appeal open and refrained from expressing any opinion on them. The judgment emphasized the importance of balancing the interests of the petitioner and the revenue, ensuring timely action on the application for provisional release.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
