2025 (2) TMI 1205 - HC - Customs

Seeking to quash the impugned Warehouse License Suspension Order issued u/s 58B(2) of Customs Act 1962 by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand - provisional release of goods - evasion of duty - HELD THAT - It is reasonably inferred that the Department of Customs has no objection to the provisional release of the goods of the Petitioner. Accordingly it is directed that the Department of Customs shall provisionally release the Petitioner s goods subject to conditions imposed in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from today. Reply be filed within four seeks. Rejoinder thereto if any be filed within four weeks thereafter - List before the Joint Registrar on 11th March 2025.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the impugned Warehouse License Suspension Order dated 7th October, 2024 issued under Section 58B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is liable to be quashed.

- Whether the provisional release of goods seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) is permissible under the Customs Act, 1962, particularly in light of the allegations of duty evasion and seizure orders.

- Whether coercive action against the proprietor and his family members, especially considering their age and bail status, is justified pending investigation.

- The applicability and interpretation of Sections 111(m), 111(o), 113(i), and 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 in the context of alleged mis-declaration, seizure, and provisional release of goods.

- The relevance and effect of the Department of Customs' lack of instructions and the DRI's stated no-objection to provisional release on the Court's directions.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Warehouse License Suspension under Section 58B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962

The Customs Act, 1962 empowers the Commissioner of Customs to suspend warehouse licenses under Section 58B(2) if there are grounds to believe that the licensee has violated provisions of the Act. The suspension order dated 7th October, 2024 was issued following a DRI search and seizure operation alleging duty evasion by the Petitioner.

The Court examined the factual matrix, including the DRI's investigation, seizure of goods valued at approximately Rs. 23 crores, and the alleged mis-declaration of imported goods in shipping bills. The Petitioner's contention that the suspension order was unjustified was considered against the backdrop of the statutory provisions and the ongoing investigation.

Given that the suspension was issued as a preventive measure during investigation under statutory authority, and in the absence of any procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice shown by the Petitioner, the Court did not find grounds to quash the suspension order outright. However, the Court's directions for provisional release of goods and restraint on coercive action reflect a balanced approach to protect the Petitioner's interests without undermining the investigation.

Issue 2: Provisional Release of Seized Goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962

Section 110A of the Customs Act provides for the provisional release of seized goods subject to conditions, pending adjudication. The DRI seized imported goods and export consignments alleging contravention of Sections 111(m), 111(o), and 113(i) relating to mis-declaration and evasion of duty.

The Court scrutinized the communication dated 25th September, 2024 from the DRI to the Commissioner of Customs, which explicitly stated no objection to provisional release of the goods under the statutory framework and Board Circulars No. 35/2017, 33/2005, and 30/2013. The DRI's position was significant, as it indicated that while the goods were liable for confiscation due to mis-declaration and non-compliance with the MOOWR Scheme conditions, the department was amenable to provisional release.

Applying the legal framework, the Court directed provisional release within two weeks, subject to compliance with conditions prescribed by law. This demonstrates the Court's adherence to procedural safeguards and the principle that seizure and confiscation are not automatic but contingent on due process and adjudication.

Issue 3: Coercive Action Against Proprietor and Family Members

The Petitioner's proprietor, aged over 80 years, and his family members, including a grandson who was arrested and later granted bail, were subject to investigation and potential coercive action by the DRI. The Court considered the humanitarian aspect and the principle of proportionality in enforcement actions.

While the investigation into alleged customs violations is ongoing, the Court restrained coercive measures against the elderly proprietor and the grandson on bail, provided they cooperate with the investigation. This reflects the Court's recognition of the need to balance enforcement with protection of individual rights and dignity, especially of vulnerable persons.

The Court also left open the possibility for the Petitioner or family members to seek further remedies if additional summons or coercive steps are initiated, ensuring access to judicial review.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Relevant Customs Act Provisions and Precedents

The Court's analysis involved Sections 111(m) and 111(o) which pertain to prohibited import/export and evasion of duty, and Section 113(i) concerning mis-declaration in shipping documents. The seizure orders were premised on these provisions, alleging undervaluation and mis-declaration of betel nut imports and exports.

Section 110A allows provisional release of seized goods, balancing enforcement with commercial interests. The Court applied these provisions in light of the DRI's communication and Board Circulars, which provide procedural guidelines for provisional release and conditions to be imposed.

The Court's approach aligns with established principles that seizure and confiscation require adherence to procedural safeguards, and provisional release is a recognized remedy to mitigate hardship pending final adjudication.

Issue 5: Impact of Department of Customs' Lack of Instructions and DRI's No-Objection

The Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondents acknowledged the absence of instructions from the Department of Customs, and the DRI's no-objection to provisional release was a key factor in the Court's decision.

The Court inferred that the Department's inaction or silence, coupled with the DRI's position, justified provisional relief to the Petitioner. This underscores the principle that administrative authorities must act consistently and expeditiously, and their failure to provide instructions cannot be a ground to withhold relief where statutory provisions and departmental communications favor such relief.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"In view thereof, it is reasonably inferred that the Department of Customs has no objection to the provisional release of the goods of the Petitioner. Accordingly, it is directed that the Department of Customs shall provisionally release the Petitioner's goods, subject to conditions imposed in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from today."

"So long as the proprietor of the Petitioner and his family cooperate in the required investigation, no coercive action shall be taken against the father who is more than 80 years of age and the grandson who has been released on bail."

The Court established the core principle that provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act is permissible when the investigating agency (DRI) consents, and that enforcement actions must be tempered by considerations of age, bail status, and cooperation with investigation.

The final determinations include upholding the suspension order's validity without quashing it at this stage, directing provisional release of goods subject to statutory conditions, and restraining coercive action against vulnerable family members pending investigation.