Petition granted for release of imported goods after 2-year detention without seizure. Compliance with Customs Act provisions emphasized.

The Court allowed the petition for a writ of mandamus under Article 226, directing the provisional release of imported goods detained by Customs at Mundra Port for over two years without seizure. The Court emphasized compliance with statutory timelines, invoking Customs Act provisions for provisional release and inventory requirements. The petitioners were instructed to provide a Bank Guarantee for eight weeks pending inquiry completion by Customs authorities to verify the Country-of-Origin. If confirmed as Pakistan, the petitioners were to fulfill legal obligations, ensuring their rights were protected and undue detention avoided.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Release of imported goods detained by Customs.
2. Validity and verification of the Country-of-Origin certificate.
3. Legal provisions under the Customs Act for provisional release of goods.
4. Compliance with statutory timelines for investigation and detention of goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Release of Imported Goods Detained by Customs:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents to release the imported goods detained at Mundra Port. The goods, imported under Bill of Entry No.7015597 dated 25.02.2020, had been detained for over two years without seizure, which the petitioners argued was unlawful.

2. Validity and Verification of the Country-of-Origin Certificate:
The goods were accompanied by a Country-of-Origin certificate issued by the Dubai Chamber of Commerce, indicating Turkey as the origin. The Customs authorities doubted the certificate's authenticity and suspected the goods might originate from Pakistan. Despite multiple requests, the petitioners could not provide additional movement documents from Turkey Customs, citing non-cooperation from the Dubai exporter due to COVID-19.

3. Legal Provisions Under the Customs Act for Provisional Release of Goods:
The petitioners invoked Section 110A of the Customs Act, which allows for the provisional release of goods. The Court noted that the goods had not been formally seized under Section 110, which mandates an inventory and a six-month timeline for issuing a notice. The Customs authorities' continuous detention without seizure was deemed contrary to the statute, preventing the petitioners from seeking provisional release under Section 110A.

4. Compliance with Statutory Timelines for Investigation and Detention of Goods:
The Court observed that the Customs authorities had not adhered to the statutory timelines for investigation and detention. Under Section 110(2), goods must be returned if no notice is issued within six months of seizure, extendable by another six months. The continuous detention without seizure for over two years was found to be unlawful.

Judgment:
The Court allowed the petition, directing the provisional release of the goods. The petitioners were required to furnish a Bank Guarantee of Rs.2,00,000/- for eight weeks, during which the Customs authorities were to complete their inquiry. If the Country-of-Origin was confirmed as Pakistan, the petitioners were to fulfill their legal obligations. The judgment emphasized adherence to statutory procedures and timelines, ensuring that the petitioners' rights were not unduly compromised by prolonged detention without formal seizure.

---