Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, RKZB International, a proprietorship concern of Smt. Rizu Kalra, imported ball-bearings under Bill of Entry No.5681804 dated 2nd October 2021. Based on information, the Respondents initiated an enquiry and seized the goods. A show cause notice dated 22nd April 2022 was issued alleging undervaluation of the imported goods and past 13 bills of entry, proposing rejection of declared value under Explanation 2(iii)(a) to Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The Petitioner made several written applications (dated 17th December 2021, 13th May 2022, 6th June 2022, 14th June 2022, 17th August 2022, 9th February 2023, 22nd February 2023, and 21st July 2023) to Respondent No.2 (Commissioner of Customs) requesting provisional release of the goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, and also filed an interim reply to the show cause notice. Despite repeated requests, Respondent No.2 did not reply to any of the letters. The Petitioner, as a last resort, filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to allow provisional clearance of the ball-bearings pending adjudication of the show cause notice. The Court observed that the Respondents have a statutory duty to consider and decide applications for provisional release under Section 110A, and their failure to respond to the Petitioner's repeated applications constitutes a dereliction of statutory duty. The Court directed Respondent No.2 to consider the Petitioner's application for provisional release and pass appropriate orders within two weeks, and upon such order, the goods shall be released on provisional basis upon the Petitioner furnishing security to the satisfaction of Respondent No.2.
Headnote
A) Customs Law - Provisional Release of Seized Goods - Section 110A Customs Act, 1962 - Statutory Duty to Consider Application - Petitioner imported ball-bearings which were seized on allegation of undervaluation. Petitioner made repeated applications for provisional release under Section 110A, offering to secure revenue. Respondents failed to respond to any application. Court held that the Respondents have a statutory duty to consider and decide applications for provisional release under Section 110A, and failure to do so is a dereliction of duty. Court directed Respondents to consider the application and release goods on provisional basis upon furnishing security. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Respondents are obliged to consider and decide the Petitioner's application for provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether failure to respond to such applications amounts to dereliction of statutory duty.
Final Decision
The Court directed Respondent No.2 (Commissioner of Customs) to consider the Petitioner's application for provisional release of the goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 and pass appropriate orders within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon such order, the goods shall be released on provisional basis upon the Petitioner furnishing security to the satisfaction of Respondent No.2.
Law Points
- Provisional release of seized goods
- Section 110A Customs Act
- 1962
- Mandamus
- Statutory duty to respond
- Article 226 Constitution of India
