Saikat Ali vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should approach the Adjudicating Officer, specifically the Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner, Customs, Agartala, with a formal application for the release of the perishable goods within four days. The application should be supported by all necessary facts and documents, as per Section 110(1-A) of the Customs Act, 1962. Upon receipt of this application, the Adjudicating Officer was directed to decide the matter in accordance with the law, preferably within ten days from the date of receipt, after adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Court explicitly stated that no comments were made on the merits of the petitioner's claim. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Saikat Ali, proprietor of M/S. Saikat Enterprise, operating under a trade license and GST registration, had 700 bags of sugar, valued at approximately Rs. 15,09,998/-, seized by Customs authorities on 19.11.2024. The consignment was being transported from Agartala to Bishalgarh with valid documentation. The seizure was purportedly for violation of Section 7(1)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962, under Section 110 of the Act. The petitioner received summons, filed a written statement, and applied for the release of the goods as perishable under Section 110(1-A) of the Act. However, his application remained pending, prompting him to approach the High Court. The Revenue contended that the petitioner had not applied before the appropriate Adjudicating Officer and that there was a dispute regarding the ownership of the goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the release of the seized consignment of sugar, considering its perishable nature, under Section 110(1-A) of the Customs Act, 1962? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the consignment was seized despite having valid invoices, e-way bills, and other necessary documents. He emphasized the perishable nature of the goods and highlighted that his application for release under Section 110(1-A) of the Customs Act, 1962, was kept pending by the respondent authorities. He sought a direction for the release of the goods under suitable terms and conditions to prevent their deterioration. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue contended that the petitioner had not made the application for release before the appropriate Adjudicating Officer, who should be the Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner, given the value of the goods. They referred to Circular No.16/2018-Customs. Furthermore, the Revenue stated that the petitioner had denied ownership of the goods in response to a summons, creating a dispute of facts. They submitted that if a proper application was made to the Adjudicating Officer, it would be decided in accordance with law.