Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 434 - KERALA HIGH COURTDetention of imported goods - Digital Multifunction Machines (DMM) - prohibited/restricted goods or not - non-compliance with the requirement of producing Extended Producers (EPR) certificate as per E-waste Management Rules (EMR), 2016 - case of petitioner is that the broad classification or entry under which the goods are imported comes under ‘restricted’ category but not ‘prohibited’ category? - section 110 of CA. HELD THAT:- The inspection of goods imported under the Bill of Entry has not been taken so far by the respondent. There is a serious dispute on whether the subject goods comes under ‘restricted’ category or ‘prohibited’ category under various Enactments, Rules and Regulations referred to above. This Court, without determination on the aspect by the authorities in accordance with law ought not to accept one view or the other strenuously canvassed by the parties. Section 110 deals with seizure of goods, documents and things by the officer authorized by the Act. Section 110(2) deals with a situation where notice under clause (a) of Section 124 is not issued within six months of the seizure of the goods under subsection (1) and such omission obligates the officer to return the goods to person from whose possession it is seized. Condition precedent for complying Section 110(2) is an order of seizure under Section 110 of Customs Act. It is not the case of petitioner that order for seizure of goods imported through Ext.P2 has been made by respondent. The allegations in the writ petition are to the effect that there is complete inaction notwithstanding the decision of Courts of competent jurisdiction on the very same point. While arguing the writ petition an attempt was made on one hand by the petitioner to get a declaration from this Court that the goods imported through Ext.P2 are entitled to be provisionally released albeit payment of applicable tariffs. On the other hand, an attempt is made by the respondent to get a decision on the goods imported, that the goods imported through Ext.P2 come under ‘prohibited’ category. This Court is not pursuaded at this juncture to assume that the goods imported through Ext.P2 come either under ‘restricted’ category or ‘prohibited’ category. But at the same time the Court is not convinced with the continued inaction on the part of respondent in taking up the goods imported through Ext.P2 consignment, for inspection or get the goods inspected by authorities empowered by various Rules and Regulations, receive their reports and then pronounce its view/order. A situation resulting in stalemate is presented by the inaction of respondent. The petitioner notices the objections raised by the respondent in the counter affidavit filed in this behalf and the petitioner is given liberty to request within two weeks from today, the respondent herein or, through the respondent, such competent authority, to inspect the goods imported and obtain report or certificate, as the case may be, on the specification, nature etc of goods imported. By referring to the certificate/authorization/ report made available in this behalf the respondent passes an order whether the goods imported, comes under ‘restricted’ category or ‘prohibited’ category. If the goods imported come under ‘restricted’ category what are the obligations the petitioner is required to comply with for customs clearance. The respondent passes orders as are deemed within five weeks from today.
|