M/s. Transview Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India, Commissioner of Customs and The Deputy Commissioner of Customs

B.V. Nagarathna, J.—Writ petition No. 19402/2013 mainly assails the communication dated 25.03.2013 intimating the conditions for the provisional release for the goods imported by the petitioner by Bill of Entry No. 8746111 dated 12.12.2012 (Annexure-A It is the contention of the petitioner that the conditions prescribed for the provisional release for goods are harsh and burdensome and not in accordance with law. Writ petition No. 32802/2013 is filed by the very same petitioner assailing the order in original dated 09.07.2013 passed by respondent No. 2-Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import), Chennai, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-L.

Briefly stated the facts are: that the petitioner had imported "Amezcua Chi Pendant" said to be artificial jewellery from its supplier M/s. QNET Ltd., Hong Kong. Value of the goods was declared to be Rs. 4,47,45,092/- by the petitioner. Self assessment was made and system appraisal through Risk Management System and the petitioner paid duty of Rs. 97,46,340/- on 14.12.2012. The Bill of Entry was taken up for investigation by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) on information that the goods were misclassified and under valued. The goods were examined on 27.12.2012 at the warehouse, Customs Freight Station. It was found that the goods were ''Glass Pendant'' and not artificial jewellery as stated in the Bill of Entry. It was also stated that they were "Made in Germany" and its country of origin was not Malaysia as stated by the petitioner. The respondent-Department found that the classification was improperly made by the petitioner and that a higher rate of customs duty was applicable to the goods. On further investigation, the Department found that price of the goods were under valued by the importer and that there were several other deficiencies in the import.

The second respondent prima facie found that there was a miss-declaration on the part of the importer on the following grounds:

a) Description

b) Country of origin

c) Classification

d) Existence of relationship with the supplier e) True transaction value

Under these circumstances, goods were seized by mahazar drawn on 11.01.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner sought release of the goods by its letter dated 01.02.2013. In the meanwhile,

WP No. 19402/2013 had been preferred before this Court. Since the case required adjudication on the aforesaid aspects, the second respondent passed an Order u/s 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 extending the detention of the goods by further period of six months upto 10.01.2014. That Order is challenged in WP No. 32802/2013.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that while the imported goods are detained and petitioner is not able to have benefit of the said goods, there has been an undue delay in conclusion of the investigation and adjudication of the matters pertaining to the said import. It is also contended that the conditions annexed to the provisional release order are harsh and burdensome and not in accordance with law. Under these circumstances, Annexures-F and L are assailed in these writ petitions.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and perused the materials on record.

Though, Annexure-L is dated 09.07.2013 by which the extension of the detention has been made till 10.01.2014, having regard to the fact that there can be no further extension after the said date and keeping in mind that matter requires adjudication on various aspects which have been stated in the order in original dated 09.07.2013, it would be in the interest of both the parties that the adjudication on these aspects shall be concluded at the earliest point of time, so that if really there is no irregularity in the import, the goods could be released to the petitioner herein at an earliest point of time. In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the impugned order in these writ petitions, the second respondent is directed to initiate and conclude the adjudication within an expeditious period of time which means that the issue of notice to the petitioner shall be by 15.11.2013 and the adjudication on the various aspects stated in the impugned order or any other aspect which would arise shall be concluded by 27.12.2013. It is needless to observe that having regard to the aforesaid time frame, the petitioner would co-operate in the proceedings and shall not take time unnecessarily and prolong the proceedings. At the same time, having regard to the fact that the goods have been detained since December 2012, if the Department is convinced of the fact that if there is indeed no regularity in the import, the detained goods shall be released to the petitioner at an earliest point of time. Therefore, with the aforesaid time frame, the second respondent is directed to conclude the proceedings on or before 27.12.2013. All contentions of both sides are kept open. Writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.