M/S. Amawii Enterprises And Anr. vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the non-disposal of the petitioner's application for provisional release of seized goods, filed on December 27, 2017, was an issue separate from the petitioner's compliance with the summons issued by the DRI on October 27, 2017. The Court found that a duty was cast upon the respondent authorities to pass an order, either allowing or rejecting, the application for provisional release after hearing the parties. The Court noted that the application had been pending for over two and a half months without disposal. Consequently, the Court directed the Commissioner of Customs (Respondent No. 5) to consider the application for provisional release, provide a due hearing to the parties, and pass an appropriate order within the parameters of the Customs Act, 1962, within two weeks of receiving the order. The Court did not decide on the compliance with the DRI summons.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Amawii Enterprises and its proprietor R. Lalmawizuali, purchased Betel Nuts and Black Pepper in Mizoram and transported them to Delhi via Assam. On September 24-25, 2017, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers, assisted by BSF, seized five trucks carrying these goods in Assam. The seizure was based on suspicion that the goods were foreign and illegally imported into India through an unauthorized route, contrary to Section 7(C) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner applied for provisional release of the seized goods, which were of Indian origin and perishable, on December 27, 2017, before the Commissioner of Customs, Shillong. This application remained undisposed of, leading the petitioner to file a writ petition seeking a direction for the release of the goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities have failed to discharge their statutory duty by not disposing of the petitioner's application for provisional release of seized goods within a reasonable time, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in disposing of the application for provisional release of perishable goods, filed on December 27, 2017, was an act beyond the jurisdiction stipulated under the Customs Act, 1962. They emphasized that the application was made solely due to the perishable nature of the seized goods and sought a direction for their release. Revenue's arguments: The respondent, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, submitted that a summons was issued to the petitioner on October 27, 2017, for appearance before the DRI. The counsel stated that it was unknown whether the petitioner had complied with the summons and requested time to obtain instructions from the concerned authority.