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

The court dismissed the petition challenging the seizure memo under the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent department justified the detention of imported goods due to contravention of import policies. The court emphasized the need for investigation, issuance of show cause notice, and compliance with natural justice principles before provisional release. The dispute over goods removal and storage was unresolved, with the petitioner failing to address the department's demands for charges. The court deemed the petition misconceived, allowing the petitioner to settle liabilities before the competent authority.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to seizure memo under Customs Act, 1962
Prohibition of imported goods
Dispute regarding removal of goods from container and storage under Section 49 of Customs Act, 1962

Analysis:
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.

---