2025 (1) TMI 1223 - HC - Customs

HC Grants Provisional Release of 2091 Sodium Carbonate Bags; Requires No Objection Certificate from Drug Controller.

M/s Successmind Marketing (P) Ltd. Versus Union of India, Principal Commissioner of Customs, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Custom House Broker, M/s. Skyline Logistics Service, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Manager M/s. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Seva), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

The HC ruled that the petitioner is entitled to the provisional release of 2091 bags of Sodium Carbonate, provided they obtain a 'No Objection ... Seeking of release 2091 bags /104000 KGs of Sodium Carbonate (Sajji Khar) under Bill of Entry No.7757409 on a provisional assessment basis at the declared value - alleged mis-declaration of 'Sodium Carbonate' as 'Arecanuts' - HELD THAT:- It is open to the petitioner to submit an additional representation for issuance of 'Detention and Demurrage Free Certificate'. If any, such representation is made, the same would be considered by the respondents and orders shall be passed on merits and in accordance with law with regard to 'Detention and Demurrage Free Certificate', within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording the petitioner, a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is open to the petitioner to make a request for grant of access to the Assistant Drug Controller to inspect the consignment/goods for issuance of aforesaid certificate. If such request is made, the appropriate authority would provide access to the Assistant Drug Controller to inspect the consignment/goods within 48 hours of such request. On such examination being made by the Assistant Drug Controller and if 'No Objection Certificate' is issued by the Assistant Drug Controller. Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the provisional release of 2091 bags of Sodium Carbonate under the Bill of Entry No.7757409 at the declared value, given the payment of customs duty. Whether the respondents are justified in detaining the goods on the grounds of misdeclaration and the absence of a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Assistant Drug Controller. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a 'Detention and Demurrage Free Certificate' under Regulation 6(1)(I) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009, to waive shipping line and CFS charges.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISProvisional Release of Goods Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue of provisional release is governed by Section 110A of the Customs Act, which allows for the provisional release of goods pending investigation. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that despite a previous order directing the consideration of the petitioner's application for provisional release, the consignment had not been released. The Court emphasized the need for compliance with procedural fairness and adherence to prior judicial directions. Key Evidence and Findings: It was highlighted that no case was registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, which could imply an absence of serious allegations justifying continued detention. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied Section 110A, considering the absence of a registered case and the petitioner's compliance with customs duty requirements, indicating a prima facie case for provisional release. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued that the absence of a 'No Objection Certificate' justified the detention. However, the Court found this insufficient, particularly given the lack of access provided to the petitioner to obtain such a certificate. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the provisional release should be facilitated, subject to the petitioner obtaining the necessary certificate from the Assistant Drug Controller.
Detention and Demurrage Free Certificate Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Regulation 6(1)(I) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009, provides for the issuance of a 'Detention and Demurrage Free Certificate' under certain conditions. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court recognized the petitioner's right to request such a certificate and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation on its merits. Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner had previously submitted a representation for the issuance of the certificate, which had not been acted upon. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the relevant regulation to the facts, noting the petitioner's compliance with procedural requirements and the need for the respondents to act on the representation. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents did not provide substantial arguments against the issuance of the certificate, leading the Court to direct consideration of the petitioner's request. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the petitioner's representation should be considered, and a decision should be made within a specified timeframe.
SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Court emphasized, 'It is open to the petitioner to submit an additional representation for issuance of 'Detention and Demurrage Free Certificate'. If any, such representation is made, the same would be considered by the respondents and orders shall be passed on merits and in accordance with law.' Core Principles Established: The Court reiterated the importance of procedural fairness, compliance with judicial directions, and the necessity of providing access to obtain required certifications. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court directed the respondents to facilitate access for the Assistant Drug Controller to inspect the goods and issue the necessary certificate within 48 hours of the petitioner's request. The petitioner's representation for the 'Detention and Demurrage Free Certificate' was to be considered within two weeks, with a decision made on its merits.