2017 (1) TMI 1411 - HC - Customs

Release of seized goods - unfinished leather - petitioners are in particular aggrieved by the fact that they have been called upon to furnish security in the form of Bank Guarantees equivalent to 30% of the 60% of the export duty in each case - Held that - seeking security in the form of Bank Guarantee is uncalled for and, in a sense, dilutes the very essence of the order dated 22.12.2016, passed by this Court. This is more particularly so, as the respondents in the earlier round had not articulated before this Court that they would be requiring security towards fine and penalty in the form of a Bank Guarantee - the impugned communication(s) which requires furnishing of security in the form of Bank Guarantee is stayed - the respondents will release the subject goods forthwith, to the petitioners, upon fulfillment of conditions already stipulated in the order dated 22.12.2016 - petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to provisional release order, conditions imposed in the order, compliance with court orders, additional conditions imposed by respondents, security requirements, execution of bond, description of goods, compliance with court directions.

Challenge to Provisional Release Order:
The petitioners initiated a second round of litigation challenging a provisional release order dated 23.11.2016. The petitioners were aggrieved by the conditions contained in Clause 6(i) of the order and approached the court seeking relief. The earlier writ petitions filed in this regard were disposed of by the judge, and specific directions were provided in the order dated 22.12.2016. The judge ruled that the conditions imposed in the provisional release order were onerous and decided to relax the condition by allowing the petitioners to seek release by furnishing a Bank Guarantee equivalent to 30% of the export duty.

Compliance with Court Orders:
Despite serving a copy of the court order on the respondents, the subject goods were not released by the respondents. The petitioners claimed to have complied with the conditions imposed in the order dated 22.12.2016. The respondents, however, issued additional orders on 10.01.2017, introducing new conditions related to security requirements and the description of goods as "unfinished leather." The judge noted that the respondents had not filed a counter affidavit earlier and criticized the respondents for introducing new conditions after the court's earlier ruling.

Additional Conditions Imposed by Respondents:
The respondents, through the orders dated 10.01.2017, attempted to include a monetary component in the provisional release order and insisted on describing the subject goods as "unfinished leather." These additional conditions were seen as an attempt to impede the release process and were not in line with the court's earlier directions. The judge stayed the part of the communication requiring security in the form of a Bank Guarantee and also stayed the advice to describe the goods as "unfinished leather."

Security Requirements and Execution of Bond:
The petitioners were required to furnish security in the form of Bank Guarantees equivalent to 30% of the 60% of the export duty for each case. Additionally, they were asked to provide indemnity bonds equal to the declared value of the goods. The judge found the requirement for Bank Guarantees uncalled for and stayed this condition, noting that the petitioners had already executed a personal bond. The judge emphasized that the conditions imposed by the respondents diluted the essence of the court's earlier order.

Description of Goods:
The respondents had advised the petitioners to describe the goods as "unfinished leather," which was contested by the petitioners. The judge stayed this advice and directed the respondents to release the subject goods to the petitioners upon fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the court's order dated 22.12.2016. The respondents were instructed to comply with the court's directions without delay.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the court's observations, and the actions taken by the judge to address the concerns raised by the petitioners regarding the provisional release order and the conditions imposed by the respondents.