2018 (2) TMI 1719 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of goods - requirement of furnishing Bank Guarantee - Held that - if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he can prefer an Appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). This is clear on a reading of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the instant case, the petitioner is required to avail such remedy because of the complicated factual situation involved. Therefore, the Court cannot test the correctness of the impugned order, by making a roving enquiry into the factual position, which has been placed before the Court at the instance of the DRI - Petition is disposed of, by directing the petitioner to file an Appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order granting provisional release of goods with conditions of bond and bank guarantee.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition against the order of the respondent granting provisional release of goods under specific conditions. The petitioner was only aggrieved by the condition requiring the submission of a bank guarantee worth Rupees One Crore. The petitioner's counsel argued that this condition was unnecessary and burdensome. The court heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel, the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, the Senior Standing Counsel for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), and a Senior Intelligence Officer from the DRI. The court highlighted that the petitioner could appeal the order before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) as per Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the complexity of the factual situation. The court emphasized that it could not delve into the factual position presented by the DRI and directed the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy under the Customs Act. Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of, instructing the petitioner to file an Appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) within a week. The Commissioner was directed to consider the appeal without limitation constraints, provide a personal hearing to the petitioner's representative, and decide on the merits promptly, preferably within three weeks after the conclusion of the hearing. The court clarified that it had not made any findings on the factual position and no costs were awarded.