Indoshell Mould Limited vs Union Of India And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 15616 Bom

                                                       1.wp.5593-21.doc

PMB

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 WRIT PETITION NO.5593 OF 2021

      Indosheel Mould Limited
      A-9, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
      Coimbatore,
      Tamil Nadu - 641021.                         .. Petitioner

           Vs.

      1. Union of India
         Notice to be served through
         Ministry of Finance,
         Department of Revenue,
         New Delhi.

      2. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-V
         Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House,
         Nhava Sheva, Tal-Uran,
         Dist - Raigad

      3. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-I
         Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House,
         Nhava Sheva, Tal-Uran,
         Dist - Raigad

      4. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs,
         Special Investigation and Intelligence
         Branch (Import), Nhava Sheva-V
         Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House,
         Nhava Sheva, Tal-Uran,
         Dist - Raigad                          .. Respondents
                                ------------
      Mr. Prasannan S. Namboodiri a/w Mr. Virendra Pandey and
      Mr. Steve J. Pulikkoden i/b. Hasika Prasad for the petitioner.
      Mr. P.S. Jetly, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. J.B. Mishra for
      respondents.

                                      1
                                                            1.wp.5593-21.doc

                          CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
                                  M. S. KARNIK, J.

HEARD ON : OCTOBER 27, 2021 JUDGMENT ON : OCTOBER 29, 2021

JUDGMENT : (PER M.S. KARNIK, J.) :

1. The petitioner-Indoshell Mould Limited invokes the

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India inter alia seeking relief and protection

from unjustified investigation being carried out by

respondent No.4 into import of Mercedes-Benz Engine Oil

on alleged grounds of undervaluation; vacating of the

seizure of two consignments of Mercedes-Benz Engine Oil

by respondent No.4; unconditional release of the said two

consignments of Mercedes-Benz Engine Oil without

furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.2 Crores as directed by

respondent No.3 and closure of investigation into alleged

undervaluation by respondent No.4 against the petitioner.

2. It is the respondents' case that the petitioner imported

Mercedes-Benz Engine Oil ('engine oil' for short) in retail

packs of one litre and 5 litres from Sinopec Lubricant

(Singapore) Pte Ltd through Shanfari and Partners, Oman

1.wp.5593-21.doc

by payment of Customs duty on a very nominal price as

compared to the price declared on the MRP label affixed on

the retail packs, which in turn was supplied by the petitioner

to Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited and sold by them at

a very high price to authorised service centre/dealer. It is

the case of the respondents that the said import is from

related parties and that the restriction on sale of the

imported engine oil only to Mercedes-Benz India Private

Limited is a situation covered by the proviso to sub-rule (2)

of Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value

of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Customs Valuation Rules' for short).

3. It is the petitioner's case that they imported the

engine oil in terms of framework contract for the supply of

Mercedes-Benz labelled lubricants (hereinafter referred to

as 'the framework contract' for short) entered into between

Daimler AG and Sinopec Lubricant Company Limited on

January 26, 2018. As per the framework contract, Sinopec

Lubricant Company Limited is required to supply private

label products to the Daimler Group in the countries set

1.wp.5593-21.doc

forth in the contract. The price at which Sinopec Lubricant

Company Limited would supply the goods to Daimler AG or

another Daimler AG Group member is set out in the

framework contract. The framework contract allows Sinopec

Lubricant Company Limited to appoint agents/distributors

for supply of the engine oil. It also permits other members

of Daimler Group to enter into an individual contract with

Sinopec Lubricant Company Limited or a member of their

group. Since Sinopec Lubricant (Singapore) Pte Limited is

not registered in India and Salalah Overseas Company LLC/

Shanfari and Partners LLC (Oman based companies) were

authorised to supply Sinopec products for the Indian

market, Sinopec Lubricant authorised Salalah Overseas

Company LLC/Shanfari and Partners to handle this business.

Hence, a framework distribution agreement between

Sinopec Lubricant, Salalah Overseas and the petitioner was

executed in November, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the

'Tri-Partite Agreement'). The Tri-Partite Agreement was

amended vide Addendum 1 to include the name of Shanfari

and Partners LLC, Oman in place of Salalah Overseas

1.wp.5593-21.doc

Company LLC Oman. As per the Tri-Partite Agreement the

Mercedes-Benz Oil was to be supplied by Sinopec Lubricant

to Salalah Overseas/Shanfari and Partners and which in

turn was to be shipped to India to the petitioner for final

supply to Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited. In terms of

the agreement Salalah Overseas/Shanfari and Partners

would receive purchase order for supply of Mercedes-Benz

Oil from the petitioner and in turn place purchase order on

Sinopec Lubricant. The petitioner on receipt of the purchase

order from Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited would

supply Mercedes-Benz Oil to them. The petitioner has to

pay Salalah Overseas/Shanfari and Partners after receipt of

payment from Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited.

4. The petitioner imported a consignment of engine oil

vide Bill of Entry No.7801383 dated June 1, 2020. This

consignment was kept on hold by the officers of Group I/IA

of Customs at Nhava Sheva on the ground that there is mis-

declaration of value. The petitioner vide their letter dated

September 16, 2020 informed the officers of Customs that

the MRP value cannot be compared with the transaction

1.wp.5593-21.doc

value. The matter was referred to respondent No.4-

Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Special

Investigation and Intelligence Branch (Import), Nhava

Sheva-V for investigation into alleged undervaluation of

price. During the course of investigation, the petitioner

imported another consignment of Mercedes-Benz Engine Oil

for which Bill of Entry No.9094841 dated October 7, 2020

was filed. Both these consignments were placed under

seizure by the respondent No.4 but allowed to be

warehoused under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962

(hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short).

5. At the request of the petitioner vide their letter dated

September 24, 2020 and November 4, 2020, provisional

release was granted of the consignments vide letter dated

November 11, 2020 of the Assistant Commissioner of

Customs. As per this letter the petitioner was required to

execute a bond equivalent to the re-determined value of

Rs.6.7 Crores and furnish security/bank guarantee of Rs.2

Crores towards differential duty, redemption fine and

personal penalty that may be levied at the time of

1.wp.5593-21.doc

adjudication. However, in view of the steep conditions of

provisional release, the petitioner could not avail provisional

release of the seized consignments which continue to

remain under seizure.

6. The respondent No.4 proceeded with the investigation.

A summons was received by the petitioner from the office of

respondent No.4 which was replied vide their letters dated

September 24, 2020 and September 25, 2020. This action

of respondent No.4 by way of seizure of the two

consignments is the subject matter of challenge which,

according to the petitioner, is untenable and completely

contrary to the provisions of the said Act. It is the

petitioner's case that the consignments were imported and

Customs duty thereon self-assessed on transaction value

which was payable to the supplier thereof as per Import

Invoice received from Shanfari and Partners Oman. Hence,

the price declared on the MRP label cannot be relied upon

for alleging undervaluation. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the Customs duty is required to be

discharged on transaction value alone since there is no

1.wp.5593-21.doc

scope or reason to doubt the correctness of the same.

According to him, the transaction value has been arrived at

purely on commercial considerations based on contracts. He

submits that Sinopec Lubricant, in order to honour the

contracts, supplied the goods at the contracted price to

Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited through Shanfari and

Partners and the petitioner. It is his submission that there is

no allegation that the petitioner paid to Sinopec Lubricant or

Shanfari and Partners more than the contracted value. He

therefore submits that under these circumstances, there are

actually no grounds to reject the transaction value. He

further submits that as regards the difference in the

transaction value of the said consignment vis-a-vis

MRP/RSP value declared on the same in the label affixed on

the retail packs, the products are bearing the brand name

of Mercedes-Benz and hence commands huge premium in

the hands of Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited alone on

which appropriate GST is being discharged at the time of

sale by them. Learned counsel pointed out that only after

the goods are imported and sold to Mercedes-Benz India

1.wp.5593-21.doc

Private Limited the brand value thereof would be available

for exploitation and that too for Mercedes-Benz India

Private Limited being from the Daimler Group. He therefore

submits that this reason alone is not sufficient enough for

rejection of the transaction value. Learned counsel invited

our attention to the various provisions of the said Act, the

Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the Central Excise Act, 1962, the

Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Customs

Valuation Rules, 2007 to contend that the Customs

authorities are bound to assess the duty on the transaction

value alone. Learned counsel submits that the continued

seizure of the goods is contrary to the provisions of Section

110(2) of the said Act and the petitioner is entitled to the

release of the goods seized.

7. Mr. Jetly, learned Senior Advocate for the Revenue

defended the initiation of the investigation and the

continued seizure of the goods. Learned Senior Advocate

submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court at

the stage of initiation of investigation. In his submission

there is a serious dispute with regard to the duty payable

1.wp.5593-21.doc

and therefore the gross undervaluation which is a subject

matter of investigation ought not to be interfered at this

stage. Mr. Jetly further submitted that if at all the petitioner

is aggrieved by the action of the respondents pertaining to

seizure of goods, statutory remedy to challenge the action

is available to the petitioner under the said Act. Mr. Jetly

therefore submitted that the present writ petition is not only

pre-mature, but in his submission, the writ jurisdiction can

hardly be a substitute for the hierarchical statutory

remedies provided under the said Act. He submits that

Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to short

circuit or circumvent statutory procedures except where

statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the

demands of extraordinary situations. Mr. Jetly then relied

upon the provisions of Section 110 of the said Act which

gives power to the appropriate authority to extend the

period for issuing show cause notice in the case of seized

goods by a further period of six months and also to provide

exemption from application of time limit of six months to

cases in which an order of a provisional release of seized

1.wp.5593-21.doc

goods has been passed. Mr. Jetly therefore submits that the

issue is under investigation and any interdiction by this

Court at this stage may not be warranted. In his submission

proper procedure has been followed in the course of seizure

of the consignment and the petitioner failed to avail the

provisional release. The petitioner has an alternate

efficacious remedy and therefore for all these reasons, the

present writ petition need not be entertained is his

submission.

8. We have gone through the petition, the annexures

thereto and heard the submissions of learned counsel for

the parties. At the outset we may indicate that so far as the

relief claimed by the petitioner as regards the investigation

carried out by respondent No.4, which according to the

petitioner is unjustified, we refrain from interfering with the

investigation at this juncture as it is for the petitioner to co-

operate with the investigation. As for the aspect of

undervaluation it is for the petitioner to make out a case

before the adjudicating authority in the first instance in

support of the contention that the duty has been correctly

1.wp.5593-21.doc

paid by them on the transaction value. We do not find it

appropriate or any reason to interdict with the investigation

being carried out by the respondent No.4 into the aspect of

undervaluation at this stage, as it is always open for the

petitioner to resort to appropriate remedies under the Act,

for satisfying the authorities that the duty has to be paid on

the transaction value and not on the basis of the MRP label

affixed on the retail packs. It is for the petitioner to place all

the materials including the Tri-Partite Agreement, invoices

before the respondent No.4, in support of its case.

9. Let us now consider the next point, i.e., whether the

continuance of the seizure is in accordance with the

provisions of the said Act and whether the petitioner is

entitled to a direction to the respondent No.4 for release of

the consignments seized. To put the controversy in

perspective, it would be appropriate to reiterate a couple of

relevant facts. The first consignment which is seized was

imported vide Bill of Entry dated June 1, 2020. The other

consignment was imported vide Bill of Entry dated October

7, 2020. Both these consignments were placed under

1.wp.5593-21.doc

seizure by respondent No.4. The seizure memo dated

October 19, 2020 in respect of goods imported vide Bill of

Entry dated June 1, 2020 records that "based on the

examination and investigation initiated, it appeared that

goods were mis-declared with respect to value. Therefore,

under the reasonable belief that the above mentioned goods

have been imported into India in contravention of Customs

Act, 1962, and appear to be liable for confiscation under

111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, in exercise of the powers

conferred on me under section 110(1) of the Customs Act,

1962, I, the undersigned, place the above mentioned

impugned goods under seizure and hereby direct the

custodian of the cargo not to remove, part with or otherwise

deal with the above said goods in any manner except with

the written permission of this office".

10. A request was made by the petitioner for provisional

release of the goods imported by Bill of Entry dated June 1,

2020 and October 7, 2020. By an order dated November

11, 2020 at Exhibit 'M', provisional release of the seized

goods was granted under Section 110-A of the said Act

1.wp.5593-21.doc

subject to conditions. The conditions being onerous the

petitioner did not avail of the provisional release.

11. We proceed on the undisputed facts that the two

consignments are admittedly seized by an order signed on

October 19, 2020. It is not disputed that the seizure under

Section 110 of the said Act in respect of both the

consignments is effected on or before October 19, 2020.

12. Let us examine the contention of learned counsel for

the petitioner that they are entitled to unconditional release

of the two consignments as a period of more than one year

has elapsed since the date of seizure in view of the

provisions of Section 110(2) of the said Act. Sub-Section

(1) of Section 110 of the said Act contemplates that if the

proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are

liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such

goods. In the present case accordingly, the seizure is

effected. Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the said Act is

then relevant which reads thus :-

"Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods,

1.wp.5593-21.doc

the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized:

[Provided that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period so specified:

Provided further that where any order for provisional release of the seized goods has been passed under section 110-A, the specified period of six months shall not apply."

13. It is pertinent to mention that the first proviso to sub-

section (2) of Section 110 of the said Act was substituted by

the Finance Act, 2018 (Act of 2018), dated August 29, 2018

with effect from August 29, 2018. Prior to substitution the

proviso read as under :-

'Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs for a period not exceeding six months'.

14. It is also relevant to refer to clause (a) of Section 124

which reads thus :-

'No order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under this Chapter unless the owner of the goods or such person--

1.wp.5593-21.doc

(a) is given a notice in writing with the prior approval of the officer of customs not below the rank of a Deputy Commissioner of Customs, informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty;'

15. We find that in respect of the goods which are seized

under sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the said Act, no

notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section

124 of the said Act within six months of seizure of the

goods. Though an order has been passed under Section

110-A of the said Act for provisional release of the goods,

the petitioner has not availed of the provisional release

pleading onerous conditions precluding them from availing

the release. Therefore, the goods continue to remain under

seizure. Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the said Act

provides that where any goods are seized under sub-section

(1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause

(a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the

goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from

whose possession they were seized. In the present case,

admittedly, the goods are seized under sub-section (1) and

1.wp.5593-21.doc

furthermore there is no notice in respect of the goods

seized given under clause (a) of Section 124 of the said Act

within six months of the seizure. The consequence therefore

in such a case is that the goods shall be returned to the

person from whose possession they were seized. The first

proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the said Act,

however, provides that the Principal Commissioner of

Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to

be recorded in writing, extend the six months' period by a

period not exceeding six months and inform the person

from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the

period so specified. The proviso therefore contemplates that

the period of six months mentioned in sub-section (2) of

Section 110 of the said Act can be extended by the higher

authority for a further period not exceeding six months, for

reasons to be recorded in writing. The proviso also requires

the higher authority to inform this to the person from whom

such goods were seized before the expiry of the period of

six months mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 110.

We find that in respect of the seized goods, there is neither

1.wp.5593-21.doc

any notice under clause (a) of Section 124 issued to the

petitioner within six months of the seizure nor has the

period of six months been extended for a further period of

six months. In the absence of there being any notice as

required by the first proviso even within the extended

period upto one year, the consequence that ought to follow

is release of the seized consignments.

16. We however must make a reference to the second

proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 110 of the said Act. As

narrated earlier, the first and second proviso was

substituted with effect from March 29, 2018. Learned

counsel referred to Finance Bill 2018 as introduced in Lok

Sabha pursuant whereto the provisos are substituted. The

Finance Bill, 2018 reads thus :

'THE FINANCE BILL, 2018 (AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA) CHAPTER IV INDIRECT TAXES Customs NOTES ON CLAUSES Clause 90 of the Bill seeks to amend section 110 of the Customs Act so as to give power to extend the period for issuing show cause notice in the case of seized goods by

1.wp.5593-21.doc

a further period of six months and also to provide exemption from application of time limit of six months to cases in which an order for provisional release of seized goods has been passed.

MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING PROVISIONS

Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 is being amended so as to :

(a) substitute the existing proviso to sub-section (2) to provide that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the six months period by a period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods have been seized before the expiry of the time mentioned in the said sub-section;

(b) insert second proviso to sub-section (2) providing that where any order for provisional release of the seized goods has been passed under Section 110A, the aforesaid period of six months, mentioned in sub-section (2), shall not apply.'

17. In the context of the Finance Bill and the provisos as

amended, a reference to the decision of this court in

Haresh S. Bhanushali vs. Union of India and others 1 is

relevant. In Paragraph 26, Their Lordships have referred to

the instructions issued dated February 8, 2017 of the

1 (2021) 376 ELT 232

1.wp.5593-21.doc

Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. Paragraphs 26

& 27 read thus :-

'26. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has issued Instruction No.01/2017-Cus dated 08.02.2017 wherein paragraph Nos.4 and 5 are relevant and are quoted hereunder :-

"4. In view of the above, in all future cases, the following may be adhered to :

Whenever goods are being seized, in addition to panchnama, the proper officer must also pass an appropriate order (seizure memo/order/etc.) clearly mentioning the reasons to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation. Where it is not practicable to seize any goods, the proper officer may serve on the owner of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer. In such cases, investigations should be fast-tracked to expeditiously decide whether to place the goods under seizure or to release the same to their owner.

5. Further, it has been brought to the notice of the Board that cases where Provisional Release of seized goods is allowed under Section 110A of the Act ibid, show cause notices are not being issued within the stipulated time period on the ground that the goods have been released to the owner of the goods. The provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 are clear that

1.wp.5593-21.doc

irrespective of the fact whether goods remain seized or are provisionally released, once goods are seized, the time period (including extended time period) stipulated under Section 110(2) of the Act shall remain applicable and has to be strictly followed."

27. A conjoint reading of the above provisions along with the above instructions dated 08.02.2017 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs would go to show that the concerned authority is required to issue show cause notice within six months of seizure failing which the seized goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession those were seized. In the instant case vehicle of the petitioner was seized on 04.11.2019. Respondents issued show cause notice dated 29.09.2020 to the importer and Clearing House Agent (CHA) but failed to issue show cause notice to the petitioner. Petitioner has been issued letter dated 21.12.2020 being corrigendum to the show cause notice issued to the importer, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated. Therefore, the show-cause notice was not only not issued to the petitioner within six months but also within the extended period of six months.'

Though the amendment is of the year 2018, the

dictum in the case of Haresh S. Bhanushali (supra) will

have an application in the present facts.

1.wp.5593-21.doc

18. We may also usefully refer to the decision of this Court

in the case of Exim Incorporation Through its

Proprietor-Gaurav Gupta vs. Union of India and ors. 2,

more particularly para 41 which reads thus :-

'41. Upshot of the above discussion is that firstly, there is no

provision in the Customs Act authorizing detention of goods.

Secondly, even if the understanding of the customs

department as discussed in Ramnarain Bishwanath (supra) is

accepted, then also detention would be at a stage after

seizure. Detention and seizure therefore cannot be used

interchangeably meaning one and the same thing. Detention

cannot be taken resort to or the customs authorities cannot

take the plea of detention to avoid consequences of seizure

under sub section (2) of section 110 of the Customs Act. If no

show-cause notice under section 124(a) is issued, customs

authorities cannot retain the seized goods for more than six

months though the aforesaid period of six months can at best

be extended for a further period not exceeding six months.

Therefore beyond the period of one year at the maximum,

there cannot be any detention of goods even in the case of

seizure without issuing show-cause notice under section

124(a) of the Customs Act.'

2 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 3593

1.wp.5593-21.doc

19. No doubt, the amendment to sub-section 2 of Section

110 of the said Act gives power to the appropriate authority

to extend the period for issuing show cause notice in the

case of seized goods by a further period of six months and

also to provide exemption from application of time limit of

six months to cases in respect whereof an order of

provisional release of seized goods has been passed. We

have already observed that within a period of six months

from the date of seizure, no notice is given under clause (a)

of Section 124. In view of the submissions of learned Senior

Advocate, we now consider the effect of the order passed

by the competent authority provisionally releasing the

goods under Section 110-A of the said Act on the release of

goods under sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the said Act.

The second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 110

provides exemption from application of time limit of six

months to cases in which an order of provisional release of

seized goods has been passed. Factually, in view of the

onerous conditions, the petitioner did not avail the release

of the goods pursuant to the passing of the order of

1.wp.5593-21.doc

provisional release. The consequence is that the goods

remain under seizure. This being the position, in our

opinion, the rigors of sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the

said Act will continue to apply as the character of the goods

continue to be goods seized under sub-section (1). The

proper officer then is obliged to follow the procedure

prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the said Act,

in that he has to issue notice under clause (a) of section

124 of the said Act within six months of the seizure of the

goods. We have already observed that the notice under

clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure is

not issued and therefore the consequence of release must

follow.

20. Assuming that the competent authority in exercise of

the powers conferred by the first proviso extends period so

specified by sub-section (2) of Section 110 by a further

period of six months, the maximum period during which the

goods shall remain under seizure is 12 months from the

date of seizure. The effect of non compliance of the

provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 110 would only be

1.wp.5593-21.doc

that the seized goods are to be returned to the persons

from whose possession they were seized. It would not

render the initial seizure of the goods illegal. Thus, under

sub-section (2) of Section 110, time limit is fixed for

retaining the goods seized by the customs authority. In case

the confiscatory proceedings are not initiated, custody of

the goods to the persons from whom they were seized are

to be handed over.

21. The contention of learned Senior Advocate for the

revenue that the period for which the petition remained

pending in this Court should be excluded while computing

the period under Section 110(2) of the said Act and other

relevant provisions can only be stated to be rejected. This

is not a case where orders of stay/interim orders have been

passed at any point of time thereby precluding the Customs

authorities from proceeding with the matter.

22. Further, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India

vs. Coastal Container Transporters Association 3 and

the decision of this Court in Garware Plastics & Polyester

3 2019 (22) G.S.T.L. 481 (S.C.)

1.wp.5593-21.doc

Ltd. and another and vs. Union of India and others 4 to

contend that Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not

meant to short circuit or circumvent statutory procedures.

Learned Senior Advocate submits that the petitioner has an

alternate efficacious remedy under the said Act to seek

release of the goods and hence the present petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be

entertained.

23. Considering the legal position discussed herein above,

ex-facie it is obvious that the respondents have exceeded

the time limit to keep the consignments under seizure and

are not entitled to detain the goods any further, hence we

have no hesitation in entertaining the present petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite availability of

alternate remedy.

24. Consequently, the respondents are directed to

forthwith release the two consignments of Mercedes-Benz

Engine Oil imported vide Bill of Entry No.7801383 dated

June 1, 2020 and Bill of Entry No.9094841 dated October 7,

2020 on completion of necessary legal formalities and in

4 1986 (24) E.L.T. 449 (Bom.)

1.wp.5593-21.doc

any case within the period of two weeks from date of

compliance of all legal formalities. The writ petition is partly

allowed. No costs.

25. We make it clear that this order shall not preclude the

competent authority to proceed against the petitioner in

accordance with law.

                      (M.S. KARNIK, J.)                         (CHIEF JUSTICE)



         Digitally
         signed by
         PRADNYA
PRADNYA  MAKARAND
MAKARAND BHOGALE
BHOGALE  Date:
         2021.10.30
         11:35:42
         +0530