Case law
Judgments from CESTAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Court, each summarised and linked to the provisions it applies.
Judgments powered by Indian Kanoon.
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
- Section 2(34), Customs Act, 1962 — Definitions
- Section 11, Customs Act, 1962 — Power to prohibit importation or exportation of goods
- Section 28(4), Customs Act, 1962 — Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short- paid or erroneously refunded
- Section 6, Customs Act, 1962 — Entrustment of functions of Board and customs officers on certain other officers
- Section 18, Customs Act, 1962 — Provisional assessment of duty
- Section 125, Customs Act, 1962 — Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation
- Section 3, The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 — Powers to make provisions relating to imports and exports.
- Section 17, Customs Act, 1962 — Assessment of duty
- Section 28B, Customs Act, 1962 — Duties collected from the buyer to be deposited with the Central Government
- Section 124, Customs Act, 1962 — Issue of show cause notice before confiscation of goods etc
- Section 3, Customs Act, 1962 — Classes of officers of customs
- Section 16, Customs Act, 1962 — Date for determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation of export goods