2011 (7) TMI 477 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of the goods - appellants have mis-declared the value description and weight of the goods - goods were seized for investigation under Customs Act 1962 - order for imposing certain conditions for provisional release - provisional release allowed (a) On execution of bond with solvency certificate for the value of the seized goods under these 13 containers., (b) Payment of differential duty as well as anti dumping duty as applicable and (c) On furnishing a bank guarantee of 20% of the duty involved.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of conditions for provisional release of detained goods.
2. Compliance with conditions for release of goods.
3. Comparison of conditions imposed in previous consignments.
4. Applicability of legal precedent in the current case.
5. Decision on release of goods based on imposed conditions.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the appeal against the imposition of conditions for the provisional release of goods detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) due to mis-declaration by the appellants. The Commissioner allowed the release of goods subject to conditions such as execution of bonds, payment of customs duties, anti-dumping duty, and submission of a solvency certificate.

2. The appellants contested the conditions, citing compliance with harsher conditions in previous consignments. The advocates argued for modification of conditions based on a Delhi High Court case precedent. The Revenue Department opposed, emphasizing the need for strict conditions due to mis-declaration and habitual offenses by the appellants.

3. The judge noted the conditions imposed in the earlier consignments and found the subsequent conditions to be harsher. The judge emphasized the need for similar conditions for goods in the pipeline and rejected the applicability of the cited legal precedent. Despite acknowledging the harshness of the conditions, the judge directed the release of goods in 13 containers based on specific conditions including bond execution, duty payment, and bank guarantee.

4. The judge addressed the past consignment's seized goods and directed adjustments against the liability of those goods. The judgment concluded with instructions for the provisional release of goods within three days upon compliance with the specified conditions, thereby disposing of the appeal accordingly.

This judgment highlights the importance of examining each case individually, considering past actions of the appellants, and balancing the need for revenue security with the fairness of imposed conditions for the release of detained goods.