2004 (5) TMI 505 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Provisional release of seized goods

Analysis:
The case involved the appeal filed by M/s. S.G. International (P) Ltd. against the rejection of their request for provisional release of goods seized by the Commissioner of Customs. The Appellants, an Export-Oriented Unit, manufactured and exported leather goods. The goods were seized at the Customs Port without their authorization, leading to a dispute regarding the ownership and export of the goods. The Appellants requested provisional release of the goods to fulfill their export obligations, which was initially rejected by the Commissioner. The Appellants argued that they were not the exporters as they had not filed shipping bills, which are mandatory under the Customs Act for goods intended for export. They contended that the seizure of the goods was without authority of law and jurisdiction, emphasizing procedural irregularities in the export documentation process. The Appellants also highlighted the Exim Policy provision requiring the lifting of seizures within 7 days and alleged that the seizure was a tactic by trade competitors to hinder their export activities.

Decision:
After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Appellate Tribunal observed that the main issue was whether the seized goods could be provisionally released to the Appellants. The Tribunal noted that the goods had been under seizure for six months, and the Appellants' foreign customer was pressing for the supply, threatening legal action for damages. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not demonstrated that releasing the goods provisionally would impede the investigation. As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, ordering the provisional release of the goods upon the execution of a bond for the full amount of the goods and the submission of a bank guarantee. The Revenue was permitted to retain samples of the goods for further investigation, ensuring the continuation of the inquiry while allowing the Appellants to fulfill their export commitments. The appeal was disposed of with these directions, granting provisional release of the seized goods to the Appellants.