2013 (4) TMI 164 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of goods at the time of import goods seized provisional release of goods was order on fulfillment of certain conditions Held that - The terms of the order safeguards both differential duty and fine and penalty to the extent of 25% of the differential duty amount. Therefore tribunal are prima facie of the view that the order passed is fair to both Revenue and the appellant and the modification by another passed order is not warranted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of imported garment accessories suspected of mis-declaration.
2. Provisional release terms set by the adjudicating authority.
3. Jurisdictional concerns regarding the competent authority.
4. Modification of conditions for provisional release.
5. Dispute over bank guarantee requirement post payment of differential duty.
6. Argument on mis-declaration leading to potential fines and penalties.

Analysis:
1. The case involves the seizure of imported garment accessories due to suspected mis-declaration by the appellant regarding the quantity and value of goods at the time of import. Goods were seized from various locations, and Bills of Entry were involved.

2. The adjudicating authority set provisional release terms for the seized goods, including the execution of bonds, payment of differential duty, bank guarantees, and undertakings regarding the quantity and identity of goods. The appellant contested these terms, especially concerning goods lying uncleared at the ICD.

3. Jurisdictional issues arose as the impugned orders were signed by the Deputy Commissioner, but the matter was supposed to be considered by the Commissioner, leading to an appeal filed in the Tribunal against the order.

4. Subsequently, the adjudicating authority modified the conditions for provisional release, requiring a bank guarantee for 25% of the bond value to cover potential fines and penalties. The appellant objected, arguing that the terms were unfair given the assessed value of the goods.

5. The appellant disputed the need for a bank guarantee post payment of the differential duty, claiming the assessed value was too high and not commercially viable. The Revenue argued for the necessity of fines and penalties due to mis-declaration by the appellant.

6. After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that the original order's terms safeguarded the interests of both the Revenue and the appellant adequately. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to implement the initial order for the live consignment, emphasizing the relationship between fines, penalties, and the evaded duty amount.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues, arguments, and decisions outlined in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and its implications.