TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en up first for disposal. 4. The following are the short facts and circumstances warranted the petitioner to file the above Writ Petition. The petitioner is in the trade of import and local sales of spices, condiments in the nature of Black Pepper, cassia, Star Aniseeds etc. and Arecanuts (Betelnuts). They were issued with Import and Export Code by the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Bangalore. They are assessed to Income Tax and also registered with Food Safety & Standards Authority of India. In the course of their business, they had imported 54 MTS of ''Black Pepper'' of Sri Lankan Origin and 44 consignments of Arecanuts of Sri Lankan Origin from their overseas suppliers in Sri Lanka. The goods were consigned to the petitioners by their Sri Lankan suppliers under the cover of Invoices including the Certificate of Origin issued by the Department of Commerce, Government of Sri Lanka in terms of India - Sri Lanka free Trade Agreement. The petitioner filed bills of entry for clearance of Black Pepper and Arecanuts. The goods imported by them being ''Food'' in terms of Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006, the same was forwarded b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....540 of 2019 is filed before this Court. 5. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent, wherein it is stated as follows: This is the case of mis-declaration of Country of Origin and submissions of fraudulently obtained certificates of Origin to avail ineligible benefits under ISFTA and SAFTA, as evident from the huge tranche of documents recovered during the course of investigation. The importer has falsely tried to cast the delay on its part on FSSAI and Plant and Quarantine on DRI. During the course of investigation, the DRI has mustered huge documents from several persons/ entities involved in the transportation of the impugned goods which indicate that the goods declared to be wholly produced in Sri Lanka by the importer is not correct and on the other hand, the goods were transshipped through Sri Lankan territory. During the course of investigation, it is found that the Certificates have been obtained from the competent authority at Sri Lanka by suppressing vital information that the goods other than Sri Lankan Origin were being merely transshipped through the territory of Sri Lanka, which tantamount to fraudulent procurements of Certificates of Origin. Circular N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. The petitioner imported the subject matter goods by filing relevant Bills of Entry. The core dispute between the parties is in respect of the Country of Origin of those goods. It is claimed by the petitioner that the goods are of Sri Lankan Origin, whereas it is claimed by the respondent that the goods were only transshipped through Sri Lanka and not of Sri Lankan Origin itself. Both sides relied upon certain materials in support of their respective claim and contentions. 10. Admittedly, the matter is still under the investigation stage. Therefore, at this juncture, this Court is not inclined to go into any of the supportive documents relied on by the respective parties and give any finding on those documents, since any such finding will certainly prejudice the investigation. However, this Court has to consider and decide as to whether the conditions imposed for provisional release are to be sustained or not, since the respondent has agreed to release the goods provisionally, subject to the compliance of the impugned conditions. 11. W.P.No.540/2019 is filed against the condition imposed for a provisional release of the subject matter goods. In other words, it is not in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed before this Court by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well. When a specific question is put to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent as to whether any further communication is received from the Sri Lankan Authority after the above said communication dated 06.12.2018, he submitted that though no further communication is received so far, the investigating authority has sent further communications to the Sri Lankan Authority to find out as to under what circumstances such communication was issued. Therefore, under the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that as on today, the said communication dated 06.12.2018, seems to be the latest communication issued by the Sri Lanka Customs Authority, prima facie, supports the case of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that imposing onerous and stringent conditions for release of the goods cannot be justified. At the same time, the request of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner offering 10% guarantee as has been taken by the Customs Authority at Krishnampatnam Port, also cannot be accepted, since as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respon....