9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by Bill of Entry No. 2784973 dated 16th February, 2021 on payment of applicable duty under Chapter 21. In the Writ Petition No. 7355 of 2021, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned Seizure Memo dated 3rd August, 2021 and the DYCC JNCH, Laboratory Test Reports. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus to forthwith assess and clear the goods imported by the petitioner and covered by Bill of Entry No. 2784973 dated 16th February, 2021 on payment of applicable duty under Chapter 21. 4. By Writ Petition No. 2284 of 2021, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the Officers of the respondent no.2 in charge of Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (Import) are not 'proper officers' for the purpose of Section 110 of the Customs Act and seeks further declaration that the decision of the Authority for Advance Rulings dated 31st March, 2017 is binding on the respondents. The petitioner has also prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned Seizure Memo dated 24th March, 2021 and also the impugned order dated 13th May, 2021. The petitioner has prayed for an order and direction against the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecting release of goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 9936145 dated 12th December, 2020 on the condition of the petitioner executing a P. D. Bond for Rs. 2,01,61,575/- along with bank guarantee of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- towards differential custom duty, fine and penalty. The petitioner impugned the said Provisional Release Order by filing a Writ Petition before this Court (2284 of 2021). 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.4 neither completed the assessment of the goods nor made any communication with the petitioner regarding those goods assessed for a period of 5.5 months from the date of filing of Bill of Entry. However, on 3rd August, 2021, the respondent no.3 issued a seizure memo inter-alia stating that the goods covered vide Bill of Entry No. 2784973 dated 16th February, 2021 were liable for confiscation. 10. The petitioner filed Writ Petition bearing No. 7355 of 2021 in this Court challenging the seizure memo dated 3rd August, 2021 on 21st October, 2021. It is the case of the petitioner that on 22nd October, 2021, the respondents during the pendency of the said writ petition passed an ex-parte provisional release order in respect of the goods covered vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Petitioner invited our attention to the Order passed by the Authority for Advance Rulings dated 31st March 2017 and would submit that pursuant to an application preferred by the Petitioner, in relation to the dispute of classification of imported supari goods, which is one of the issue involved in this Petition, the Authority had categorically held that the products sought to be imported by the Petitioner namely 'unflavoured supari', 'flavoured supari', 'API supari' and 'chikani supari' being processed betel nut products which do not contain specified ingredients, namely, lime, katha and tobacco but containing other flavouring material/additives are classified under Customs Tariff Headings 21069030. He submits that the said ruling given by the said Authority under Section 28 J of the Customs Act is binding not only on the Petitioner but also on the Principal Commissioner of the Customs or Commissioner of Customs and the Customs Authorities subordinate to him in respect of the Applicant. He submits that the goods in question were the subject matter of the said Advance Ruling given by the Authority classifying the said goods under Customs Tariff Heading 21069030. The Custom Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the matter. 17. Mr.Shah, learned counsel for the Petitioner also invited our attention to the ground-T raised in the Petition in support of his submission that the Petitioner who imported consignments of the same goods as in the present case from the same supplier through Chennai Port were allowed clearance under Chapter Heading 21069030 and the bills of entry were finally assessed. 18. Learned counsel for the Petitioner lastly submitted that the goods imported by the Petitioner are perishable in nature and are illegally seized by the Respondents for quite some time. If this Court comes to the conclusion that the sample of the goods has to be drawn again for retesting to be carried out by the Government Laboratory, only in that event this Court shall allow release of the goods by accepting P. D. bond from the Petitioner. 19. Mr.Jetley, learned senior counsel for the Respondents on the other hand vehemently urged that since the Respondents have taken further steps by passing an Order of provisional release, at this stage, Order of Seizure Memo cannot be set aside. He submits that the Respondents have no dispute that the DYCC could not have analyzed or carried out any t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 21 which could not be analyzed/tested by DYCC. It is admitted by the Respondents that the goods in-question however were tested by the said DYCC Lab, which had no facility to carryout such testing. The only explanation sought to be rendered by the Petitioner in the Affidavit-in-Reply is that the Petitioner did not make any request of retesting the samples by Government Laboratory or by FSSAI. On the other hand the Petitioner has rightly contended that the Petitioner came to know about such testing by DYCC only when the Order of Seizure Memo was served upon the Petitioner. 24. However, since after issuance of the impugned Seizure Memo, which is the subject matter of one of the Writ Petition, the Respondents passed an Order for provisional release and since the Petitioner could not get any interim Order in these Petitions till date though they are pending for quite some time, we do not propose to quash the Order of Seizure Memo unconditionally. We have not expressed any views in this matter at this stage whether the Advance Ruling relied upon by the Petitioner would cover the goods in-question or not in view of the rival contentions raised by the Respondents in respect of the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
