2023 (2) TMI 836 - HC - Customs

Writ of Mandamus Denied in Customs Case: Court Emphasizes Clear Release Instructions

SHRI PRAVEEN BHADANI, PROP. OF M/s. ARIHANT OVERSEAS Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

The appellant sought a Writ of Mandamus for the release of seized goods and issuance of a show cause notice under the Customs Act. The Single Bench ... Release of imported goods - seizure of goods - demand of differential duty - failure to issue show cause notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) for adjudication of the purported seizure for the imported consignment. Whether the goods should be any longer detained? - HELD THAT:- In the order of provisional release dated 29.3.2022 the respondent department has accepted the fact that the appellant has paid the entire differential duty of Rs.46,48,200/-. After taking note of the said payment in the order the appellant has been directed to execute a bond for the estimated value of the goods namely Rs.81,95,532/- and to submit a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.90 lakh. So far as the full estimation of the goods is concerned, since the differential duty has already been estimated it may not be necessary for the appellant to execute a bond for the fully estimated value of the goods as estimated in the order dated 29.3.2022. So far as the submission of bank guarantee of Rs. 90 lakhs the order of provisional release does not state as to how the said quantification has been made. Even after giving credit to the sum of Rs.46,48,200/-, it is not clear from the order of provisional release or the communication dated 12th February, 2023 as to how the balance amount has been computed. In any event, the goods are lying with the Customs from 10th September, 2021 and the goods are stated to be readymade garments/apparels. Thus, the differential duty having been paid, the department does not gain in keeping the goods detained any longer - thus, a workable order should be passed so that the interest of revenue is protected, at the same time, the appellant importer is also able to clear the goods. Issuance of the show cause notice - HELD THAT:- If in the opinion of the respondent department, the case of the appellant can be split up from that of Vineet Goel, then nothing prevents the respondent department from issuing a show cause notice under Section 124(a) of the Act. However, this is left to the discretion of the department with a note of caution that issuance of show cause notice should not be unduly delayed, especially when the allegation of the department against the appellant is that earlier consignments might also have been grossly misdeclared. The appeal is disposed of by directing the respondents to release the subject goods subject to the appellant furnishing a bond for a sum of Rs.90,00,000/-. The goods shall be released within a period of seven days from the date on which such bond is furnished. Issues:1. Whether the goods should be detained any longer.2. Whether a show cause notice should be issued to the appellant.Analysis:1. The appellant sought a Writ of Mandamus for the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the release of the seized consignment. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition as a detailed order for provisional release had been passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs. The appellant contended that the conditions for provisional release were onerous despite paying the differential duty. The Court directed the department to provide necessary instructions, including furnishing a bank guarantee and responding on the issuance of a show cause notice. The respondent department accepted the payment of the differential duty but directed the appellant to execute a bond and submit a bank guarantee. The Court found the quantification of the bank guarantee amount unclear and noted that the goods, readymade garments, had been detained since September 2021. It was concluded that a workable order should be passed to protect revenue interests while allowing the appellant to clear the goods.2. Regarding the issuance of the show cause notice, the Court stated that if the appellant's case could be separated from another individual's case, the department should not unduly delay issuing the notice. The appeal was disposed of by directing the release of the goods upon the appellant furnishing a bond. The Court allowed the department to issue a show cause notice to the appellant if feasible, preferably within two months. The respondent department was permitted to issue a supplementary show cause notice if fresh material emerged after further inquiry. It was emphasized that the order was specific to the case and should not set a precedent.