M/S. Radhika Exports vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Radhika Exports, a proprietorship concern engaged in trading imported tyres, tubes, and flaps, imported goods from China under Bill of Entry No. 2144239 dated 28.12.2020. The petitioner declared only agricultural tyres, but upon examination, it was found that tubes, flaps, and tyres for trucks/buses/light commercial vehicles were not declared, attracting higher duties. The imported goods were also deemed restricted due to a change in foreign trade policy with China. A show cause notice was issued on 22.02.2021, leading to an order in original dated 29.04.2021 by the Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar, demanding tax, interest, penalty, and redemption fine. The petitioner filed an appeal on 29.10.2021 with an application for provisional release under Section 110(A) of the Customs Act, 1962, before the Commissioner of Appeals, GST, Central Excise and Customs.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority. The Court ordered that the pending appeal itself be decided within two months from the date of the order. Failing that, the application moved by the petitioner under Section 110(A) of the Customs Act, 1962, for provisional release of the goods, was to be decided not later than two months from the date of the order, in accordance with law. The reasoning was based on the agreement between the petitioner and the revenue, and the acknowledgment of the need for timely disposal, especially given the nature of the goods having a shelf-life. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the validity of the original order but focused on procedural expediency.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority should be directed to decide the application for provisional release of seized/confiscated goods under Section 110(A) of the Customs Act, 1962, considering the goods have a shelf-life? The petitioner argued that the goods have a shelf-life and therefore, the application for provisional release should be decided expeditiously. The revenue, represented by Mr. P.K. Parhi, ASGI, and Mr. Radheshyam Chimanka, Senior Standing Counsel, stated they had no objection if the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the main appeal or at least the application for provisional release within a timeline. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue regarding the merits of the provisional release application itself, other than their agreement to a time-bound disposal.