Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court disposed of two writ petitions filed by Himgiri Buildcon & Industries Limited and Agsons Agencies (I) Private Limited against the Union of India and others. The petitioners, engaged in import and trading of metals, had entered into high seas agreements with M/s. S. R. Enterprises for supply of copper wire rods. After the goods arrived at the port, the high seas buyer filed bills of entry. However, disputes arose leading to cancellation of the high seas agreement. The petitioners applied for amendment of bills of entry to substitute their names as importers and for clearance of goods on payment of customs duty. Instead of responding, the customs authorities detained and seized the goods. The petitioners filed a previous writ petition (Writ Petition No.862 of 2020), which was disposed of on 27.02.2020 with a direction that the application for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 be decided within two weeks. The Joint Commissioner of Customs rejected the application on 17.03.2020. The petitioners challenged this rejection. The court held that the rejection order was unsustainable as it did not consider the statutory provisions of Section 110A. The court set aside the order and directed the respondents to release the goods provisionally upon the petitioners furnishing a bank guarantee for the full value of the goods and executing a bond. The court also directed that the amendment applications for bills of entry be considered in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Customs Law - Provisional Release of Seized Goods - Section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 - Rejection of Application - Petitioner sought provisional release of copper wire rods seized during import after high seas agreement was cancelled - Joint Commissioner rejected application without considering statutory provisions - Held that rejection was unsustainable and directed release on conditions (Paras 1-10). B) Customs Law - Amendment of Bills of Entry - High Seas Sale - Petitioner as importer sought substitution of name in bills of entry after cancellation of high seas agreement - Customs authorities failed to respond and instead detained goods - Held that authorities should consider amendment application in accordance with law (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Joint Commissioner of Customs was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the petitioners are entitled to amendment of bills of entry and release of goods.
Final Decision
The court set aside the order dated 17.03.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs and directed the respondents to release the goods provisionally upon the petitioners furnishing a bank guarantee for the full value of the goods and executing a bond. The amendment applications for bills of entry are to be considered in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of Customs Act
- 1962
- Amendment of bills of entry
- High seas sale
- Detention and seizure of imported goods
