2022 (12) TMI 1253 - HC - Customs

Court dismisses petition challenging seizure memo under Customs Act, 1962, emphasizes investigation & compliance with natural justice principles.

M/s Unity Metalloys Llp Versus Union Of India And 4 Others

The court dismissed the petition challenging the seizure memo under the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent department justified the detention of imported ... Seeking provisional release of detained goods - Light Melting Iron and Steel Scrap for melting imported at the port of CFS M/s Star Track Terminal Pvt. Ltd. ICD Dadri - prohibited goods or not - stand of the department is that the petitioner is required to deposit the demurage charges and other charges for removal of goods and storage of them in the warehouse in accordance with Section 49 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- In the rejoinder affidavit, the dispute has again been raised with regard to the validity of the order of seizure and action of the respondent authority in seizure of the goods. But nothing has been stated about the process of removal of goods from the container and its storage in the warehouse or inclination to deposit the demurage charges. We, therefore, find that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and hence dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of the present writ petition will not come in the way of the petitioner, in any manner, in case its representative appears before the competent authority to discharge its liability for removal of goods from the containers or any other dispute pending before the investigating authority or adjudicating authority. Issues:Challenge to seizure memo under Customs Act, 1962Prohibition of imported goodsDispute regarding removal of goods from container and storage under Section 49 of Customs Act, 1962Analysis:The petitioner challenged the seizure memo dated 15.7.2022, concerning the detained goods of 'Light Melting Iron and Steel Scrap for melting' imported at the port of CFS M/s Star Track Terminal Pvt. Ltd. ICD Dadri under Bill of Entry No.8984683, alleging contravention of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent department contended that the imported goods were prohibited as per the Government of India's import policy, hence not eligible for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The release was subject to sample testing, investigation, issuance of a show cause notice, and adjudication after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The respondent highlighted the ongoing investigation and the need for a speaking order by the adjudicating authority post-investigation.The dispute also involved the removal of goods from the container and their storage in the warehouse under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner raised concerns about the department's refusal to allow removal of goods for returning empty containers to the exporter. Dates were set for the petitioner's appearance before the competent authority, the Officer of NOIDA Customs Commissionerate, to resolve the issue. Despite the petitioner's appearance, the process of removing goods was not completed, with the department insisting on the deposit of demurrage and other charges as per Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962.The respondent argued that the writ petition seemed to be an attempt to avoid the necessary charges for removing goods from containers. The court granted the petitioner time to seek instructions and file a rejoinder affidavit. However, the rejoinder failed to address the removal process or the willingness to deposit demurrage charges, leading the court to dismiss the petition as misconceived. The court clarified that the dismissal did not prevent the petitioner from appearing before the competent authority to settle liabilities or disputes related to goods removal or any other matter pending before the investigating or adjudicating authority.