Case Law Details
Additional Director General Vs Hazel Mercantile Ltd (Gujarat High Court)
t appears from the materials on record that the respondent No.1 herein imported goods declaring the same to be ‘Naphtha’ classified under CTH 27101229. The goods were imported at the Kandla Port vide the Bills of Entry. It appears that the respondent No.2 herein – Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, was not convinced with the declaration as regards the nature of the goods. In such circumstances, the samples were drawn and those were sent for testing to the Customs House Laboratory at Kandla. The Chemical Examiner, Customs House Laboratory, Kandla certified that the sample is ‘Natural Gasoline Liquid’. Upon receipt of such report from the Laboratory, the respondent No.2 confronted the respondent No.1 of having mis-declared and mis-classified the imported goods as Naphtha under the CTH 27101229. In view of the aforesaid, the entire consignment imported by the writ applicant came to be seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that at this point of time without entering into any other controversy, we must pass an appropriate interim order that may protect the interest of both, the respondent No.1 also and at the same time the writ applicant DRI. It is very clear that even if the respondent No.1 is permitted to re-export the goods as ordered by the Tribunal, it is always open for the Department to initiate appropriate proceedings for the purpose of confiscation of the goods by issue of a show cause notice. All larger issues involved in this litigation shall be looked into and decided.
We are of the view that we should permit the respondent No.1 to re-export the goods on the condition that the respondent No.1 shall furnish a running Bank Guarantee of an amount of Rs.15 Crore of any Nationalized Bank in favour of the respondent No.2, Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. This would definitely protect the interest of the Revenue to some extent.
As the vessel is now ready to sail its going to be very difficult for the respondent No.1 to furnish the bank guarantee by today itself. In such circumstances, Mr. Nankani, the learned senior counsel submitted that an authorized representative of the Company i.e. the respondent No.1 shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before this Court stating that the bank guarantee of the amount of Rs.15 Crore shall be furnished to the respondent No.2 by 31.01.2022 without fail. For the present, we permit the respondent No.1 to proceed with the re-export of the goods on the respondent No.1 furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.15 Crore in favour of the respondent No.2 by 31.01.2022. The respondent No.1 be permitted to re-export the goods by using the nomenclature “Naphtha” and it is observed that using of the said nomenclature would not bind the Department (DRI) and would not entitle the respondent No.1 to raise a plea of estoppel in the proceeding that may be initiated by the DRI against the respondent No.1.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
