In Writ Petition No. 10537 of 2023 -BOM HC- Bombay High Court slams customs commissioner for ignoring RKZB International’s request for provisional release of goods
Justice G.S. Kulkarni & Justice Jitendra Jain [30-08-2023]

Read Order: RKZB International v. The Union of India Thr. its Joint Secretary Ministry of Finance of Revenue and Anr.

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, October 4, 2023: In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court has ruled that Customs Commissioners must promptly and efficiently respond to provisional release requests from importers, taking into account the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The court also expressed its expectation that Customs Officers would handle provisional release applications promptly, and that if they are unable to grant or decide upon the application, they should communicate the reasons for this to the importer.

The court's ruling came in a case where RKZB International (petitioner), a proprietorship concern, had imported ball-bearings. The Department had initiated an investigation based on information regarding the import of these goods. During the investigation, statements of certain individuals were recorded, and the goods in question were seized. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, alleging, that the petitioner had undervalued the imported goods. In response to these circumstances, the petitioner had sent letters to the relevant officer, requesting the provisional release of the goods.

The division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain expressed their surprise at the Commissioner of Customs' approach, noting that despite the petitioner making representations over a period of nearly two years, the Commissioner of Customs had failed to respond to the petitioner's requests for provisional release.

The bench emphasized that the Commissioner of Customs should have been aware that, in their capacity as a public official vested with substantive powers under the Customs Act, they were accountable to private parties engaging with the department, especially regarding matters for which legal powers were bestowed upon them.

“This was certainly not, what would be expected from a public official,” said the division bench.

The bench ruled that in the present case, the Commissioner of Customs had not only neglected to acknowledge the petitioner's repeated applications, despite having the authority to exercise discretion regarding the provisional release of goods or the imposition of conditions for such release, but also seemed to have acted in a manner that disregarded their powers and responsibilities.

Furthermore, the bench noted that the show cause notice, despite being issued for almost one year, had not been adjudicated upon and did not seem to have made any progress. The bench expressed its unwillingness to allow a situation in which the petitioner would suffer due to the inaction of the Commissioner of Customs on both fronts. It was held that there was no legally justifiable reason for denying the petitioner provisional release on specified conditions.

Consequently, the court opined that this case warranted granting the petitioner's request for the provisional release of the goods.