2021-TIOL-634-HC-MAD-CUS

CC Vs Best Mega International

Cus - Writ Petitions had been filed seeking a mandamus directing the Customs Authorities to release consignments of old and used digital multifunction print, copying and scanning machines of A3 size imported by the petitioners on payment of applicable customs duty on the value as enhanced and fixed by the Chartered Engineers - Single Judge had held that the Apex Court (in similar cases) clearly evinced the view that the goods in question are liable to be released in spite of the issue pending consideration on merits; that the Supreme Court had consistently taken a view in favour of provisional release in such cases, noticing that in identical cases, release has been ordered and there would be no justification to take a contra view in a few cases alone; that the issue on merits has been held in favour of the assessee by a Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in the case of RR Marketing and there is no stay of this order by the Supreme Court; rather provisional release has been ordered in this case as well; that the Appellate Authorities, both at the first and second levels of the hierarchy, have held the matters in favour of the assesses on merits and some such orders have become final, therefore, the Writ Petitions were allowed and it was directed that the consignments in question are to be released upon remittance of the enhanced duty as quantified based upon the valuation of a certified Engineer; that the Adjudication proceedings are to be concluded as expeditiously as possible: Revenue is in appeal against this order.

Held: The earlier interim orders granting for provisional release were during the regime when the goods were treated as restricted goods requiring license for importation or certification but there is drastic change in the legal position as of 1st April 2020 as the goods have become prohibited - This subtle yet very relevant distinction has to be taken note of to treat the present set of cases on a different yardstick - The decision of the High Court of Telangana which was pressed into service for the respondent is an interim order and not a final order - In fact some other grounds which were canvassed, if needs to be adjudicated, then Bench may have to do the role of an Officer of Customs or an Officer who deals with classification of the products for the purpose of levying and collecting customs duty which Bench is not required or expected to do - Circulars being clarifications would date back to the date of notification originally issued and the argument that it will be prospective, i.e. post 01.04.2020 is rejected - In the result, the writ appeals are allowed and the order passed in the writ petitions are set aside - The appellant, Customs Department is directed to consider the applications filed by the respondent/writ petitioners for provisional release and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks: High Court [para 35, 40]

- Appeals allowed :MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-633-HC-MAD-CUS

Kannan Ramdurai Iyer Vs CC

Cus - Petitioner seeks quashing intimation under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 passed by R1, and as a consequence thereof, direct R1 to release the consignment covered under Seizure Memorandum dated 06.03.2020.

Held : Seizure was effected on 06.03.2020 and the provisions of Section 110(1) provide that where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no show cause notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized - However, proviso to Section 110(2) states that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, extend the period of six months to a further period not exceeding six months, and inform the person from whom such goods were seized of such extension, before the expiry of the period so specified - The impugned notice in this case was issued on 30.09.2020 extending the period for issuance of show cause notice for further period of six months invoking the proviso to Section 110 (2) of the Act, but was received by the petitioner on 07.10.2020 - As per the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020, any act that would have had to be carried out between the period 20.03.2020 to 29.09.2020 could now be carried out on or before 30.09.2020 - In the present case the impugned intimation is dated 30.09.2020, signed on 29.09.2020 by the officer - The date of seizure is 06.03.2020 and the period of six months (original period of seizure) expired on 05.09.2020 - The intimation of extension should have been brought to the knowledge of the petitioner on or before 05.09.2020, accompanied by the reasons recorded for the extension - By virtue of the relaxation ordinance, such time stands extended to 30.09.2020, however, and admittedly, the intimation has been received by the petitioner only on 07.10.2020, beyond the date stipulated in the proviso to Section 110(2) and the reasons for extension have also not been supplied - Writ petition is allowed and the respondent directed to release the consignment in question within a period of two weeks: High Court [para 21, 22]