UNIK TRADERS Vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been filed challenging the common order passed in W.P.No.540 of 2019 and W.P.No.33269 and 33276 of 2018. The appellants in the appeals are three in number namely, the Writ Petitioner, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and the Customs Department. Since all the appeals question the correctness of common order dated 22.01.2019 passed in the Writ Petitions, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For easy reference, the parties shall be referred as the petitioner, the DRI and the Customs.

(2.) W.A.Nos.236, 237 and 240 of 2019 have been filed by the Writ Petitioner. W.A.Nos.236 and 237 of 2019 are directed against the order in W.P.No.33269 and 33276 of 2018, in which the petitioner questioned the correctness of the seizure memorandum dated 01.12.2018 issued by the DRI.

(3.) For the sake of convenience, with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, W.A.No.240 of 2019, is taken as the lead case. The petitioner is stated to be a trader in spices, condiments in the nature of black pepper, cassia, star aniseeds etc., and Arecanuts (Betelnuts). The petitioner would state that they are in the same line of business for over two decades and have been issued an Import Export Code by the Joint Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Bangalore. The petitioner imported 44 consignments of Arecanuts and one consignment of black pepper from Sri Lanka, stating that the goods are of Sri Lankan origin. The goods were shipped with the certificates of origin issued by the Department of Commerce, Government of Sri Lanka under the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) Agreement and Indo Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA) and claimed the benefit of the notification No.75/2006- Cus.(N.T) dated 30.06.2006 and the notification No.19/2000-Cus (N.T), dated 06.03.2000. If the benefit of the notification is extended to the subject goods, then the petitioner would be entitled to import the same duty free/concessional rate. The consignments arrived at the Chennai Port, but were not permitted to be cleared for home consumption on the basis of concessional rate of duty claimed by the petitioner in terms of the aforementioned notification. The petitioner submitted request letters dated 26.11.2018 and 29.11.2018 addressed to the Customs Department as well as to the DRI seeking release of the imported goods for home consumption and also permission to re- export the goods in respect of which 'no objection' was rejected by the authorised officer of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India contending that the representations were not considered, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.33269 and 33276 of 2018 challenging the seizure memorandum dated 01.12.2018 and sought for release of the goods. The learned Writ Court by an interim order, dated 18.12.2018, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Adjudicating Authority and file an application under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) for provisional release of the goods. On such application being filed, the Adjudicating Authority was directed to pass appropriate orders at the earliest point of time, in any event, within five days from the date of receipt of such application, since it was stated that the goods under detention are perishable in nature. Accordingly, the petitioner through their counsels filed an application under Section 110A of the Act on 19.12.2018, requesting for provisional release of the goods. In the said application, the petitioner stated that under similar circumstances, goods were released on execution of a bond and detention certificate for waiver of demurrage and container detention charges were also granted. Similar request was made by the petitioner in the said application under Section 110A of the Act. The Adjudicating Authority namely, the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Group-1), Chennai passed orders on 27.12.2018, permitting provisional release of the goods subject to three conditions namely, furnishing of bond equal to the value of the seized goods; bank guarantee/security deposit to cover the entire amount of differential duty; and bank guarantee/security deposit in lieu of fine and penalty amounting to 25% of the differential duty. This order was issued with the approval of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Commissionerate. Subsequently by another communication dated 01.01.2019, in continuation of the communication dated 27.12.2018, the same three conditions were reiterated , except a change in the value of the bond, the amount to be furnished as bank guarantee or security deposit towards differential duty and penalty. This order dated 01.01.2019 was impugned in W.P.No.540 of 2019.