Case law

Madras High Court · 29 Nov 2021

M/S.Unik Traders vs The Additional Commissioner Of Customs

Legal principle

Investigation and assessment are distinct functions: the DRI may only gather and pass on intelligence, while the 'proper officer' under Section 2(34) read with Notification No.40/2012-Cus (N.T.) alone may assess Bills of Entry, and imported goods—especially perishables—must be assessed and released, finally or provisionally under Section 18, within fixed timelines.

Court decision

The writ petition was disposed of with directions largely in the petitioner's favour: the court held that only the jurisdictional proper officers (Respondents 1 and 2, or the Appraiser/Superintendent under Notification No.40/2012-Cus (N.T.)) are empowered to complete assessment, finally or provisionally, while Respondents 3 and 4 (DRI) have no jurisdiction to impede the imports and may only pass intelligence to the proper officer. Assessment/classification was to be completed within 15 days; if the dispute is only valuation, the goods must be released provisionally under Section 18 within that period; if the goods appear liable to confiscation as prohibited, a seizure order may issue and the matter must be closed within 30 days thereafter with natural justice safeguards, with an option to re-export if held prohibited, without prejudice to penalty. No costs were awarded.

Facts

M/s.Unik Traders, a Bangalore-based importer of spices and arecanuts, imported unflavoured supari (betelnut/arecanuts) from Myanmar in 16 containers valued at Rs.4,33,90,500/- under three Bills of Entry dated 22.09.2021 and 29.09.2021, which it self-assessed. Jurisdictional Customs officers (Respondents 1 and 2) drew samples and commenced provisional assessment under Section 18(1)(b), and the petitioner executed a test bond for Rs.4,35,90,500/- on 12.10.2021. DRI officers from Nagpur (Respondents 3 and 4) then intervened and stalled both assessment and clearance, leaving the perishable goods lying at Balmer Lawrie CFS, Chennai, while demurrage and container detention charges accrued. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for release of the goods and a detention certificate waiving the charges.

Key provisions