2023 (3) TMI 1182 - HC - Customs

Provisional Release of Perishable Goods Granted with Conditions: Tax Payment, Guarantees, Expedited Adjudication

The court granted the prayer for provisional release of the imported perishable goods, emphasizing the need for swift action due to their perishable ... Seeking provisional release of seized goods - import of assorted fresh Kiwi fruits - perishable goods - unfit for human consumption or otherwise - HELD THAT:- While the court has gone through the averments and contentions raised in the affidavit, they primarily relate to repeat use of the Phytosanitary Certificate for more than one consignment. It is not the stand of the authorities for seizure of the goods that the goods are unfit for human consumption. It was accepted by the respondent authorities also that it is not the ground that the goods are not worth of human consumption. Under the statutory provisions, the seizure of the goods would follow the inquiry and investigation to be further followed by adjudication process which may or may not ultimately lead to confiscation of imported goods as contemplated in section 111 of the Act. The stage of inquiry has yet not been started. It is reflected that though goods were seized on 20.11.2022, so far the petitioner is not issued show cause notice. In any case, the adjudicatory proceedings have not started - The court finds that when the goods are perishable in nature, the authorities should act with greater swiftness to proceed with the adjudicatory mechanism and take a final decision. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the petitioner has agreed to abide by the conditions which may be imposed in light of the decision of this court in M/S. A AND A SHIPPING SERVICES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2022 (12) TMI 778 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], which could be applied to guide the final order to be passed, this court is inclined to grant the prayer by allowing the provisional release of the goods. As far as the conditions on which the goods may be released to the petitioner, the court leaves the said aspect to the competent authority concerned who shall prescribe the conditions on the lines of the conditions prescribed by this court in M/s. A and A Shipping Services exercising sound discretion in that regard and upon compliance of such conditions shall provisional release the goods. The authorities shall permit the release of the goods on stipulated directions - petition disposed off. Issues Involved:The issues involved in this case include the seizure of imported goods due to alleged misdirection in furnishing details, the request for provisional release of perishable goods, and the application of statutory provisions under the Customs Act, 1962.Seizure of Goods:The petitioners, engaged in import and trade, challenged the seizure memo issued under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962, for fresh Kiwi fruits imported through Bills of Entry. The goods were seized based on the repeated use of a Phytosanitary Certificate for multiple consignments, leading to allegations of misdirection in declaring the origin of the goods.Provisional Release of Goods:The petitioner sought provisional release of the perishable goods, emphasizing the financial loss due to delay in clearance. Reference was made to Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, allowing for provisional release pending adjudication. The petitioner relied on a previous court decision for a similar case involving fresh Kiwi fruits to support the request for release.Court's Decision:The court noted that the goods were perishable and that the adjudication process had not yet commenced despite the seizure. Emphasizing the need for swift action in such cases, the court considered the previous decision's relevance in granting provisional release. Conditions for release, including tax payment and provision of guarantees, were outlined, with a directive for expedited adjudication.Conclusion:The court granted the prayer for provisional release of the goods, leaving the imposition of conditions to the competent authority. The authorities were directed to release the goods upon fulfillment of specified conditions within a stipulated timeframe. The court clarified that the decision did not delve into the merits of the case, to be determined during the adjudicatory process.