1998 (3) TMI 143 - HC - Customs

Revenue Dept. can detain goods to prevent duty evasion post-payment. Stay application denied.

The Court denied the stay application, ruling that the Revenue Intelligence Department can detain goods to prevent duty evasion even after duty payment. ... Detention of goods after clearance Issues:Stay of judgment and order dated 27th February, 1998, passed by the Trial Judge and proceedings pending before the Commissioner of Customs, detention of goods by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, powers of Revenue Intelligence Department, legality of detention after duty payment, applicability of Section 129D of the Act.Analysis:The appellants filed a stay petition seeking to stay the judgment and order of the Trial Judge and the proceedings before the Commissioner of Customs, requesting the return of goods detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The appellant's counsel argued that once duty is paid as determined by Customs Authorities, the Revenue Intelligence has no authority to detain the goods, and any further proceedings should be stayed as they lack jurisdiction. The Additional Solicitor General contended that Revenue Intelligence can intervene to prevent duty evasion and detain goods if undervalued. The Court inquired about the specified duties of Revenue Intelligence Officers, noting that while exact regulations were not provided, previous judgments and notifications outlined their powers, emphasizing the duty to prevent duty evasion and illegal imports.The Court acknowledged that even without specific regulations, Revenue Intelligence can intervene in cases of duty evasion. Referring to previous case law, the Court highlighted that once duty is determined, the Intelligence Department can detain goods if undervalued, rejecting the appellant's argument to the contrary. The Court noted that the appellant did not claim non-compliance with Section 129D of the Act, indicating that the departmental authorities acted within the statutory provisions. Considering the facts and legal precedents, the Court found no grounds for a stay of the judgment or direction to halt proceedings, especially since the Trial Judge had already instructed the respondents to complete necessary steps within a specified timeframe.In conclusion, the Court rejected the stay application, citing the lack of justification based on the reasons provided and the Trial Judge's directives. The Court made no order as to costs and instructed all parties to act on a signed copy of the dictated order.