9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 919 - HC - CustomsSeizure of Goods Held that - The petitioner was entitled for release of the goods subject to furnishing of the bank guarantee of 30% of differential duty and a bond of value of goods as required under condition Relying upon Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of Cus., ICD, TKD, New Delhi 2010 (5) TMI 592 - DELHI HIGH COURT - It was clarified that the condition no. (b) of the provisional release order shall be kept in abeyance - The order was without prejudice to the contention of the petitioner s counsel that he was not liable to pay duty of customs in view of Section 26 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Subject to fulfillment of the directions as stated above, the goods will be released within a week from the date of fulfilling of the conditions - Respondent shall intimate the amount of 30% of differential duty within a period of three days from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.
Issues:
1. Provisional release of goods seized by the Intelligence Officer in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Unit. 2. Conditions imposed for the provisional release including bank guarantee and challenging/disputing the identity and value of goods. 3. Alternative remedy under Section 129-A of the Customs Act for appeal. 4. Interpretation of circular dated 4th January, 2011 regarding provisional release of goods entered for exportation. Provisional Release of Goods: The petitioner's goods, cleared by Custom Authorities, were seized by the Intelligence Officer for further investigation under a punchnama. An order of provisional release was issued with conditions including a bond and bank guarantee. The petitioner challenged the conditions related to bank guarantee and disputing the identity and value of goods. Conditions for Provisional Release: The petitioner contested the condition requiring a bank guarantee for Rs.16.75 crore, citing judgments from the Delhi High Court and the Apex Court. The petitioner argued that the condition preventing challenging the identity and value of goods was onerous and unreasonable. The court acknowledged the substance in the petitioner's arguments based on previous judgments and directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of 30% of the differential duty and a bond of the value of goods for release. Alternative Remedy under Section 129-A: The respondent suggested the petitioner had an alternative remedy through an appeal under Section 129-A of the Customs Act. However, the court noted that the provisional release order was not an adjudication order, and the issue required further consideration based on precedents from the Delhi High Court and the Tribunal. Interpretation of Circular dated 4th January, 2011: The circular focused on the provisional release of goods entered for exportation and the requirement of appropriate security. The court clarified that the circular's provisions regarding export goods were not directly applicable to the goods imported in this case. Conclusion: The court ruled in favor of the petitioner for the release of goods upon fulfilling the directed conditions of a bank guarantee and bond. The condition preventing challenging the identity and value of goods was kept in abeyance. The order did not affect the petitioner's contention regarding customs duty under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. The respondents were given a timeline for compliance with the court's directives, and further affidavits were to be filed within specified periods. This detailed analysis covers the issues of provisional release of goods, conditions for release, alternative remedies, and the interpretation of relevant circulars, providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court.
|
