TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g electronic goods and spare parts, for which purpose, they import goods from abroad, besides purchasing locally. They obtained Import Export Code No. 0413045153 from the office of the Director General of Foreign Trade. They also registered themselves with Commercial Taxes Department under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and were allotted TIN No.33761243844. 2.2. During the course of their business, the respondent/writ petitioner sought to import "LED spare parts for lighting fixtures, spare parts for lighting fixtures and capacitor for lighting fixtures" from M/s.Zhongshan Zeda Lighting Co. Ltd., China and the said goods were loaded vide Bill of Lading dated 04.04.2015, duly covered by Invoice No.ZEDA20150318 dated 02.04.2015 for a value of US$ 10153.92. On arrival of such goods, the respondent/writ petitioner filed Bill of Entry No.8915658 dated 15.04.2015 with the office of the third appellant for assessment and clearance of the goods. After examining the same, the second appellant opined that the goods were found to be in order and as declared. 2.3. However, after a period of two months, the Appraiser attached to the office of the second appellant issued summons date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... becomes entitled to their return. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants / Revenue are before this court with this intra-court appeal. 3.1. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants would contend that the imported goods were arrived on 15.04.2015. While so, based on a specific intelligence received to the effect that the importer was resorting for undervaluation of the goods whereby the value declared was only 10% of the actual value, the consignment was taken up by Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB), Customs House, Chennai for investigation. Upon investigation conducted on 21.05.2015 in the presence of the importer's representative and the customs broker, it was found that there were 990 cartons as against the declared 972 cartons; and the parts of LED bulb plastic Housing set - bottom and top, bulb holder and screws, LED PCB, Capacitor and wire sets, as declared goods. Further, a carton box containing base machine, Foot Valve Model No.VF200-08 with compressor 0.75KW Model No.YL80L2 JB/T95421999, which was undeclared, was also found. Therefore, permission was granted to warehouse the said goods on 01.06.2015 as contemplated unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk guarantee as may be determined by the proper officer. Therefore, based on the report of SIIB, the third appellant passed the order dated 07.10.2015 to provisionally release the goods, subject to execution of bond for full value of goods of Rs.96,12,271/- and bank guarantee for Rs.28,61,359/- i.e., 110% of the estimated duty evasion by the respondent / writ petitioner. Thus, according to the learned counsel, such a provisional order passed by the third appellant cannot be found fault with. 3.3. It is further contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants that the respondent / writ petitioner had already invoked the writ jurisdiction by filing WP.No.22173 of 2015 seeking a mandamus directing the appellants to release the goods imported, which was disposed of, by order dated 17.08.2015. Pursuant to the said direction, the third appellant passed the provisional order of release of the goods on 07.10.2015 imposing certain conditions, in terms of section 110A of the Act. However, the respondent / writ petitioner did not comply with the said provisional order of release of the subject goods nor challenged the same, but they made a second attempt by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for absolute release of the goods, for want of issuance of show cause notice under section 124(a) of the Act. 4.2. Referring to a decision of the Bombay High Court rendered on 29.10.2021 in WP.No.5593 of 2021 [Indosheel Mould Limited v. Union of India], the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner pointed out that the goods have been detained for more than a year without there being any show cause notice as contemplated under section 124(a) of the Act and hence, the same ought to have been released by the appellants unconditionally. Taking note of the same, the learned Judge passed the order impugned herein, directing the appellants to release the goods without any condition. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said Bombay High Court decision is extracted below: "19. No doubt, the amendment to sub-section 2 of Section 110 of the said Act gives power to the appropriate authority to extend the period for issuing show cause notice in the case of seized goods by a further period of six months and also to provide exemption from application of time limit of six months to cases in respect whereof an order of provisional release of seized goods has been passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned Judge is wholly justified in allowing the writ petition thereby directing the appellants to release the goods and such a well considered order need not be interfered with by this court. 5. We have heard both sides and also perused the materials available on record. 6. It could be seen that in the course of business, the respondent / writ petitioner imported the subject goods viz., LED spare parts for lighting fixtures, spare parts for lighting fixtures and capacitor for lighting fixtures by Bill of Entry No.8915658 dated 15.04.2015. The said goods were not permitted to be cleared by the appellants alleging that the respondent / writ petitioner undervalued the same in order to evade from the payment of customs duty and that, the declared value was only 10% of the actual value. Admittedly, permission to ware house the said goods imported under section 49 of the Act, was given on 01.06.2015 and summons dated 04.06.2015 under section 108 of the Act, came to be issued, calling upon the Director of the respondent / writ petitioner to appear for enquiry on 04.07.2015, which was a Saturday. Thereafter, no communication / show cause notice was issued nor the goods detained were re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not that the Customs authorities lose jurisdiction to issue show cause notice. The object of enacting Section 110(2) of the Act is that the Officer of the Customs Department may not deprive the right to property for indefinite period to the person from whose possession the goods are seized under Sub-section (1) thereof. Sub-section (2) strikes a balance between the Revenue's power of seizure and an individual's right to get the seized goods released by prescribing a limitation period of six months from the date of seizure if no show cause notice has been issued under Section 124(a) for confiscation of the goods. Proviso to Section 110 (2) provides for extended period of limitation to validate the detention of the goods for another period of six months on grant of extension by the Commissioner of Customs. Section 110 (2) of the Act nowhere envisages the period of limitation for issuing show cause notice. Therefore, a plain and combined reading of Sections 110(2), 124 and 110-A spells out that any order of provisional release shall not take away the right of the assessee under Section 110(2) read with Section 124 of the Act. When no action is initiated by way of issuance of....