By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, MAY 09, 2016: THE Petitioner is a regular importer of heavy melting steel scrap and in the course of their business, they had imported heavy melting steel scrap vide bill of entry dated 06.08.2015 and the goods were initially detained on the ground that hazardous items were being smuggled in the guise of heavy melting scrap. The goods were de-stuffed and subjected to 100% examination and found that the goods were as per the declaration made in the bill of entry. Despite the fact that the goods have been detained since 12.08.2015, the respondents have not released the goods in spite of the petitioner's repeated requests, resulting in the present Petition.

The respondent department contended that they are investigating into the role of the Pre-shipment Inspection Agency M/s.Tubby Impex and the role of the steamer agent in the instant case. Further, the investigation was directed to be done in an expeditious manner.

However, the High Court was not convinced and held:

+ Admittedly, the 1st respondent has not issued any notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, hence, the goods have to be released under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. Since the provisions of the Section 110(2) is clear that in the absence of any notice under Section 124(a) within six months from the date of seizure, the petitioner is entitled to get release of the goods.

+ The impugned order dated 18.01.2016 of the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to release the goods covered by the bill of entry dated 06.08.2015 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

(See 2016-TIOL-894-HC-MAD-CUS)