Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding

🚨 Important Update for Our Users

We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.

⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59

After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.

If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know via our feedback form , with specific details, so we can address them promptly.

  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2015 (1) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password



 

2015 (1) TMI 1078 - HC - Customs


Issues:
Petitioner seeks release of seized goods for re-shipment due to alleged wrong dispatch by warehouse staff. Respondents claim goods misdeclared to evade duty, pending adjudication. Petitioner asserts ownership, requests participation in adjudication. Court to decide on release or re-shipment, permits petitioner's participation in adjudication with bank guarantee.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a trade licensee from Hong Kong, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to release a consignment of goods seized at Chennai Port, including Snap Fasteners, Sliders, Elastic Tapes, and Sewing Needles, for re-shipment. The petitioner alleged that the goods were wrongly dispatched by warehouse staff, leading to the seizure. The respondents, however, contended that the goods were misdeclared to evade Anti-dumping duty, with Chinese Sewing Needles hidden behind declared items. A show cause notice was issued to the importer, pending adjudication. The respondents objected to the release or re-shipment until the adjudication process was completed. They allowed the petitioner to participate in the adjudication, claiming ownership of the goods, with a condition to provide a bank guarantee of Rupees Fifty Lakhs to show bona fide.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's claim of the goods being wrongly shipped and the importer disowning them. While denying immediate release or re-shipment, the Court permitted the petitioner to participate in the adjudication process to establish ownership. Given the substantial Anti-dumping duty involved, a bank guarantee was mandated to ensure the petitioner's commitment. The Court directed the completion of adjudication within four months, allowing both parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The respondents were instructed to facilitate the process promptly, considering the goods' current status at the Port.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of without costs, with the Court emphasizing the need for a thorough adjudication process to resolve the dispute regarding the seized goods. The Court's decision balanced the petitioner's request for re-shipment with the respondents' concerns over potential duty evasion, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to prove ownership while safeguarding revenue interests through the bank guarantee requirement.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates