2018 (3) TMI 2008 - HC - Customs

Smuggled goods or not - Betel Nuts - not notified under Section 11-A (d) of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - Learned counsel appearing for the respondents may file counter affidavit within a month. Two weeks thereafter are allowed to the petitioners for filing rejoinder affidavit. List for admission/final disposal on the expiry of the above period along with M/S BAJRANG ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) 2 OTHERS 2017 (11) TMI 2036 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT M/S PAUL INTERNATIONAL ANOTHER VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 3 OTHERS 2017 (12) TMI 1868 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT which have already been entertained on the above point. In the meantime the consignment of betel nuts along with the vehicle carrying it which has been detained/seized at the behest of the Customs Department shall be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith subject to the petitioner furnishing facility other than cash and bank guarantee in respect of the value of the betel nuts seized that is Rs.19, 38, 563/-.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 11-A (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding notification of goods as smuggled goods.
2. Detention and release of the consignment of betel nuts by the Customs Department.
3. Requirement of furnishing facility other than cash and bank guarantee for release of seized goods.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 11-A (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The counsel for the petitioner argued that betel nuts are not among the goods notified under this section and, therefore, should not be considered as smuggled goods. This raises a crucial point of law regarding the classification of goods under the Customs Act.

2. Another significant aspect addressed in the judgment is the detention and subsequent release of the consignment of betel nuts by the Customs Department. The court ordered the immediate release of the detained/seized consignment along with the vehicle carrying it in favor of the petitioner. This decision was subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes a facility other than cash and bank guarantee for the value of the seized betel nuts, amounting to Rs.19,38,563/-. This condition highlights the procedural requirements for the release of seized goods by the Customs Department.

3. Furthermore, the court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit within a month, with an additional two weeks granted to the petitioners for filing a rejoinder affidavit. The case was listed for admission/final disposal after the specified period, along with other related cases previously entertained on the same legal point. This procedural timeline indicates the court's approach to case management and the expected progression of the legal proceedings in this matter.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the legal intricacies of the Customs Act, specifically focusing on the notification of goods as smuggled goods under Section 11-A (d). The decision to release the detained consignment of betel nuts, subject to the petitioner meeting the specified conditions, reflects the court's consideration of both legal principles and practical implications in resolving the dispute at hand.