2017 (1) TMI 1395 - HC - Customs

Pre-deposit - Detention of goods - provisional release of goods - Held that - having regard to the amendment in the provisions of the Customs Act w.e.f. 06.08.2014, after filing adjudication, a remedy is still available if pre-deposit is restricted to 7.5% of the adjudicated amount, and thus, the imposition of 100% duty in the circumstances, is onerous considering the nature of the goods - the petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the differential duty, in terms of the provisional order and also comply with the other conditions - respondents are directed to release the goods provisionally - petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Release of goods and quashing of order by Commissioner.

Analysis:
The writ petitioner filed a bill of entry for various goods imported from China, which were seized by customs authorities due to alleged undervaluation. The petitioner sought provisional release of the goods, but the Commissioner imposed a condition of depositing 100% differential duty or providing a bank guarantee for the same amount, along with other conditions. The petitioner argued that such a condition was unwarranted and arbitrary considering the nature of the goods and the circumstances. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the petitioner had appellate remedies available and that the customs authorities were justified in imposing standard conditions. The court noted the amendment in the Customs Act and found that a remedy was available if the pre-deposit was restricted to 7.5% of the adjudicated amount. Therefore, the court considered the imposition of 100% duty as onerous and directed the petitioner to deposit only 20% of the differential duty as per the provisional order, excluding the requirement of 25% bank guarantee. The respondents were directed to release the goods provisionally, while reserving all rights and contentions of the parties. The writ petition was partly allowed based on the above terms.