By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUGUST 24, 2016: THE petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Shruti Exports , is seeking relief of release of a consignment meant for export.

The petitioner has stated that he has in the past two years exported 27 such consignments under claim for duty drawback and in all these cases the goods have been procured from open market and through intermediaries. In the present case the consignment was permitted to be exported by granting what is known as "Let Export Order". Thereafter, the consignment was handed over to the Airlines for transportation to Nigeria.

However, an intelligence was received, on the basis of which the department suspected that narcotic drugs are concealed and being exported under this consignment of jewellery and footwear. During the course of such examination, a synthetic footwear was torn open to ascertain that no narcotic drugs are concealed therein. Nothing was found but the petitioner was called upon to appear before the authorities and statement was recorded.

The petitioner, therefore, submits that holding of consignment serves no purpose and causes inconvenience not only to the petitioner but also to the third partybuyer.

In response to this petition,an affidavit was filed by the department.

The High Court was not impressed with the ‘detailed affidavit' filed and, therefore, observed -

++ We have impressed upon the authorities in several matters and in one of the detailed orders [2016-TIOL-841-HC-MUM-CUS] that, this effort really turns counter productive. The whole case of the Department is revealed at this stage itself, whereby all wrong doers are then alerted. We have noted in the past as to how statements which are made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, are promptly retracted. Yet, the Department goes on insisting and by filing such affidavits desire that the Court must pronounce such parties like the petitioner guilty at this stage itself.

++ We have clarified, time and again, that neither we hold up, or scuttle any investigation. If the larger public interest demands that the consignment meant for export undergoes thorough and proper inspection and examination, then, all such steps can be taken. We are only anxious and on several occasions expressed it, that the time that is lost in all this is indeed valuable. Such delays give enough time for the parties to change and retract their positions and versions. Sometimes vital piece of evidence is lost. Therefore, the authorities should either take a decision and issue show cause notice and commence the adjudication proceedings promptly or should take steps so that the export consignments are not withheld for an unnecessarily long duration.

Without expressing any opinion on the assertions made by the petitioner that they are the owner of the goods and that have the locus standi to claim the provisional release of the goods, the High Court added -

++ If the petitioner is able to satisfy the authorities with regard to his claim, as narrated and referred above, and complies with all the circulars, so also the requirement of furnishing a bond with such security and conditions, upon this, we have no doubt, that the Competent Authority would take appropriate steps and provisionally release the goods. Needless to state that neither such provisional release would confer or create any right in favour of the petitioner nor such an exercise at this stage affects or prejudices the rights and contentions of the respondents.

The Writ Petition was disposed of.

(See 2016-TIOL-1848-HC-MUM-CUS)