TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1780
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt. The Writ Petition had been filed by an importer of a consignment that was claimed to be containing roasted Areca Nut splits, seeking a mandamus for assessment and clearance of the consignment. Bill of Entry had been filed on 21.01.2026 and Writ Petition had been instituted in June, 2026 owing to the fact that the goods had not been released despite there not having been any seizure memo issued by the appellants. 2. The Writ Petition has come to be disposed vide order dated 28.07.2026 directing provisional release of the goods and assessment of the consignment under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act'). 3. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi, learned Senior Standing Coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d counsel and perused the materials placed before us. 8. The import in this case is under Bill of Entry dated 21.01.2026, and the consignment is stated to contain roasted Areca Nut split declared to be classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91. The goods have admittedly, not been seized. However, they have not been released till date, and we thus see legitimacy in the institution of the Writ Petition seeking directions for time bound clearance and assessment of the goods. 9. The question of provisional release hinges on Section 110 of the Act that requires the recording of reasons as to why the goods are liable for confiscation. In the absence of a seizure memo, we are none the wiser as to what such reasons might be. 10. In the counter to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the presence of both the Customs Officer and importer. 13. For the purpose of this Writ Appeal, we thus eschew report dated 24.03.2026 as the drawal of samples had admittedly been by a customs officer. It is perhaps for that reason that the authorities have permitted the drawal of samples a second time, this time by an authorised officer under the FSS Act, paving the way for the second report. The first report dated 24.03.2026 thus stands superseded by subsequent report dated 20.05.2006. 14. The second sample has been tested by an agency accredited by the Food Safety and Standards Authority and, in its detailed report, the agency confirms that the sample conforms to applicable standards, though the report does not specifically use ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....05.2023). These Rulings have attained finality, the AAR indicating that the categorization of consignment as raw Areca nut, would depend upon the moisture content contained. It was only in cases where the moisture content was found to be in the range of 10 to 15% that the consignment would fall within the category of raw areca nut. 19. In the present case, the moisture content in both reports dated 24.03.2026 and 20.05.2026, is less than 6%, and going by the ruling of the AAR, the consignment would thus not be classifiable as raw Areca nut. 20. On the prima facie case made out before us, we are not inclined to intervene in the direction for provisional release leaving it open to the authority to seek personal bond in respect of diffe....