AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1027
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the summon dated 18.11.2024 in F.No. DRI/LZU/CI-26/Int. 28/F/2024/1874 and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to handover the documents to the fifth respondent to process the documents as per the related provisions of the Customs Act, Notifications, Rules, Circulars and Instructions or subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by this Court and also to issue a storage, detention cum demurrage waiver certificate with respect to the seized goods in terms of the provisions of the Handling of Cargo in Customs House Area Regulation, 2009 and the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transshipment Regulations, 2018 respectively for the period under detention/seizure, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition in W.P.No.27895 of 2024. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.27615 of 2024, seeks a direction to the respondents 1 & 2 herein, to cause release of the goods covered under the 4502344 dated 15.07.2024 and 4502923 dated 15.07.2024 based on the test report of CRCL, New Delhi supra and also on the representation dated 16.10.2024 and the remaining goods covered under bills of entry No.5576076 to 5576078 dated 13.09.2024 & 5599773, 5616559, 5597675 dated 14.09.2024 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he test report from the CRCL, New Delhi, the respondent/Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin assessed and released the consignments covered under the bills of entry Nos.4502344 dated 15.07.2024 & 4502923 dated 15.07.2024 on 11.09.2024. Despite the due process of assessment, examination, test and final clearance from the Customs Custody by the Proper officers belonging to the respondent/Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, the respondent/AD, DRI, Lucknow under the directions of the respondent/ADG, DRI, Lucknow, intercepted the consignments on its enroute to the petitioner's buyers destination at Nagpur. For which, the petitioner made a detailed representation on 29.09.2024, explaining the circumstances leading to issuance of Advance Ruling No.CAAR/MUM/ARC/44 -45&46/2022 dated 07.12.2022 in their favour, classifying the roasted betel nuts under the Tariff item 2008 1920 and the due process followed in the clearance of the intercepted goods and therefore, the petitioner sought for clearance of the impugned goods intercepted by the respondents herein/ ADG & AD, DRI, Lucknow. In the meanwhile, the petitioner firm has also filed seven more bills of entry viz., 5576076 to 5576078 dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow has intercepted and subsequently detained the goods on 22.09.2024 on mere suspicion that these goods were wrongly classified under the Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 2008 1920 as roasted areca nuts instead of CTH 0802 090 as raw areca nut. Subsequent to this detention, seven other consignments covered under the bills of entry Nos. 5576076 to 5576078, 5599773, 5616559, 5597675, 5655457 dated 13.09.2024, 14.09.2024, 17.09.2024 respectively were also seized on 16.11.2024 by the DRI, Lucknow before the same was processed by the Tuticorin Customs. Thereafter, the DRI, Lucknow has issued summons on 18.11.2024 for petitioner's appearance. 8. He contended that the respondents/ ADG & AD, DRI, Lucknow are not justified in detaining the goods that were already cleared from customs area and subsequently sold to the domestic buyers as the goods were properly assessed, examined and tested for its description and quantity etc., as per the declaration by the Customs Authorities at Tuticorin Customs. He stressed upon the fact that the goods were tested by their own and competent lab viz., CRCL, New Delhi as per the Central Manual of the Chemical Laboratories in the Custom Houses and the CBI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an roasted areca nuts, is unacceptable and invalid. Adding his arguments, he referred that the test report of ICAR-CPCRI is self-contradictory as it stated the colour of the nuts as brown but at the same time concluded that the nuts did not undergo roasting and also cited words such as non-categorical, can be presumed, may not and like which paved the way for the report to be unreliable. 11. He drew the attention of this Court to the recent decision of the First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3647 & 3648 of 2024 dated 04.03.2025, wherein it has held that if the moisture content is below 10% and imported in terms of advance ruling that has attained finality, then there is no reason to state that the imported item is raw areca nut. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the moisture content reported in the impugned ICAR-CPCRI test report ranges from 4.15% to 8.12% which reveals that the goods under seizure covered under seven bills of entry, are undoubtedly roasted betel nuts only. 12. He emphasized that the Tribunal in the case of Laltanpuii Vs. CC (Preventive), NET Region, Shillong reported in 2022 (382) (382) ELT 716 (Tr-Kol) quashed the detention / seizure based on invalid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs from the petitioner. 16. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India contented that the characteristics of the detained goods whether it is areca nut or roasted nut are all matters of disputed questions of fact which could be finally adjudicated only after a full fledged enquiry is conducted under the provisions of the Act by the respondents as contemplated under Section 124 and 28 of the Act and the order of adjudication would be passed by following due process of law. 17. He contended that the samples have been tested by CRCL, New Delhi and hence, there cannot be any further proceedings is misconceived and untenable, as the tested goods at CRCL and the transported and seized enroute goods are one and the same is also a disputed question of fact and the detained enroute samples were sent for testing to the Central Plant Protection Crops Research Institute [CPCRI], Kerala Laboratory by the respondent/AD, DRI, Lucknow and report dated 12.11.2024 has been received that the areca nut was only partially heated and not roasted and after sun dried, it has been subjected to moderate heat treatment only and hence, it is not roasted areca nut as per the report. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r not. 21. He also continued that the respondents are to be allowed to continue the proceedings and to direct the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation. He urged that if the subject goods are not areca nuts, it would be a case of mis-declaration amounting to smuggling under the provisions of the Act, giving rise to adjudication, confiscation, levy of differential duty, penalty etc. 22. He further contended that specific intelligence information has been received by the respondents that the petitioner under the guise of roasted areca nut is actually importing raw areca nut and insofar as the subject matter of seven bills of entry is concerned, the approximate customs duty evasion is Rs. 33.77 Crores and also that, they violated the DGFT notification number 57/2015-2020 dated 14.02.2023 by which areca nuts, whole or split are prohibited goods, if the value of the goods imported is less than Rs. 351/- per kg, whereas in the present case on hand, the goods have been imported at a price less than Rs. 351/- and hence, they are prohibited goods which amounts to smuggling under Section 2 (39) of the Act and are liable to be confiscated under Section 111 of the Act. 23. He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....29A of the Act and furthermore, a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court under Section 130 of the Act but however, without availing the remedies available under the Act before the Competent Authorities, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court by way of the present petitions questioning the detention, seizure and summon which is not maintainable in law. Thus, he submitted that for the aforesaid reasons the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 27. Considered the rival submissions made by the respective learned counsels on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 28. It is seen that the detained goods covered under the Bills of Entry Nos.4502433 dated 15.07.2024 & 4502923 dated 15.07.2024 by the respondents/ ADG & AD, DRI, Lucknow were already assessed and cleared for home consumption by the Proper Officers by the Customs at Tuticorin and sold to domestic buyers. Subsequent to that seven more consignments were sent through bills of entry as stated above. While that being so, the consignments dated 15.07.2024 were detained by the respondents/ ADG & AD, DRI, Lucknow on suspicion at Nagpur and their samples were drawn and subjected to tes....