TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes customs confiscation order, directs release of goods & return of deposited amount</h1> <h3>M/s Mehar Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietor, Rajnesh Malhotra, Versus The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Adj.) Customs Commissionerate, Nagpur</h3> M/s Mehar Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietor, Rajnesh Malhotra, Versus The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Adj.) Customs Commissionerate, Nagpur - TMI Issues Involved:1. Confiscation of imported goods.2. Breach of principles of natural justice.3. Validity of the Vadodara Laboratory report.4. Request for re-testing and subsequent test reports.5. Maintainability of the writ petition.Summary:Confiscation of Imported Goods:The petitioner challenged the order dated 21.06.2022 by the Joint Commissioner, Customs, which directed the confiscation of goods imported by the petitioner, identified as kerosene oil valued at Rs. 1,19,96,909/- under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner was given the option to redeem the confiscated goods by paying a redemption fine equivalent to the value of the goods, along with penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114-AA.Breach of Principles of Natural Justice:The petitioner argued that the request for retesting of the samples was not complied with, constituting a breach of natural justice. The Court acknowledged this grievance and directed the Customs Department to forward the samples to the New Customs House Laboratory, Mumbai, for re-testing.Validity of the Vadodara Laboratory Report:The initial test report from the Vadodara Laboratory indicated that the samples met the requirements of kerosene as per IS 1459-1974. The petitioner contested this report, claiming that the required tests were not conducted. The Court found that the Vadodara Laboratory's report was the basis for the show cause notice and subsequent confiscation order, which was legally flawed.Request for Re-testing and Subsequent Test Reports:The Court permitted re-testing of the samples at the Mumbai Laboratory, which reported that the samples were composed of more than 70% Mineral Hydrocarbon Oil with characteristics of Base Oil. A further re-testing at CRCL, New Delhi, confirmed these findings. Based on these consistent reports, the Court concluded that the initial report from the Vadodara Laboratory was incorrect.Maintainability of the Writ Petition:The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of a statutory appeal. However, the Court entertained the writ petition, noting that the refusal to permit re-testing was contrary to Circular 30/2017-Customs, and the basis for the show cause notice was legally flawed.Court's Decision:The Court set aside the show cause notice dated 22.03.2022 and the order dated 21.06.2022. It ordered the release of the seized goods in favor of the petitioner, subject to compliance with requisite procedures. The petitioner was entitled to the return of the deposited amount of Rs. 8,99,770/- with accrued interest. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence was granted liberty to take further steps based on the test reports in accordance with the Customs Act, 1962.Conclusion:The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the initial testing by the Vadodara Laboratory was flawed and that subsequent re-testing reports confirmed the goods were not kerosene oil but Mixed Mineral Hydrocarbon Oil. The confiscation order was set aside, and the goods were ordered to be released.
TaxTMI 