TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eficial micro organisms, the petitioner has been procuring Stains from Chandigarh and Biological Growth Medium from various states, including Pune and Mumbai. It has been procuring peptone, beef and yeast extracts from Hyderabad and Mumbai. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner also produces Herbal extracts from Karanjin seeds and custard apples for the agriculture purposes. The alkaloids extracted from the Herbs are added to the plant leaf extract imported from foreign countries. The extracts are used in agricultural operations for enhancing the growth of plants and for developing immunity in plants, against pests. A major portion of such imports are from China. The formulated extracts are sold locally, at Hyderabad a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffice of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal unit, Chennai. Pursuant to the said investigation, the goods had been detained and had been taken up for examination. The goods were de-stuffed and kept in the custody of the container freight station. Samples had been drawn from the consignments of the imported goods, by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. However, the investigating agency had alleged that there has been a mis-declaration of the cargo, as it has been declared as plant leaf extract, (Bio-fertilizers). As the goods imported are insecticides, the importation of such goods requires registration from the Central Insecticide Board, in terms of Section 9 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, read with the relev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een made to confiscate the goods, in terms of Section 111(d) (m) and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and Section 17 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Consequently, a show cause notice had also been issued proposing to levy penalties on the petitioner, in terms of Section 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The said proposal had been contested. However, vide order, dated 1.8.2011, the third respondent had confirmed the allegations made in the show cause notice and had held that the goods are matrine compound insecticides, classifiable under tariff heading 3808 9199 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 9. It had also been held that the goods were liabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 10.10.2011, requesting the respondents to act, as per the order of the appellate authority and to cause the release of the imported consignments and to issue the Detention Certificate, for the waiver of rent and demurrage charges, in terms of Regulation 6(1) of Handling of Cargo and Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, as the goods were pending clearance, for more than a year, for no fault of the petitioner. However, as no action had been taken by the respondents, on the requests made by the petitioner, the petitioner had been constrained to prefer the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the Departm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant Leaf Extract (Bio-Fertilizer).' 15. The appellate authority had not taken into consideration the report of the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Regional Centre of Organic Farming, Bangalore, dated 14.12.2010, wherein it has been stated that the supplied samples were not bio-fertilizers. Further, from the communication, dated 5.1.2011, issued by the National Centre for Mass Spectrometry, Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad, it could be seen that traces of 'Matrine' had been found in the samples sent for testing. The information available regarding Matrine reveals that it is an insecticide and that it is highly potent, even in very small concentrations. Thus, it is seen that the importer had attempted to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal, against the order of the appellate authority, would not empower the respondents to deny the release of the goods in question. No proper explanation had been given by the respondents, as to why no stay order had been obtained against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, dated 16.9.2011, even though the said order is said to have been challenged by way of a further appeal. Further, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to the detention of the goods in question, which had been imported by the petitioner, under Tariff Heading 1302 1990 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, without having proper reasons to do so. 19. The long delay in the release of the goods would, no doubt, reduce its potency, as poi....