2015 (1) TMI 163 - HC - Customs

Seizure of goods - Single Judge directed to release the goods subject to deposit of 40% of the differential duty and to execute bond for the remaining amount - whether the first respondent has made out a case for release of goods pending adjudication proceedings - Held that - interest of justice would be subserved by directing the first respondent to pay 50% of the differential duty instead of 40% as a condition precedent for releasing the goods during the currency of the proceedings. - Accordingly in modification of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants are directed to release the goods subject to payment of 50% of the differential duty as assessed by the department. All other conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge would remain without any change. The appellants are directed to release the goods within a period of one week from the date of payment of 50% of the differential duty and execution of bond - Decided partly in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction to release goods subject to deposit of 40% of the differential duty and execution of bond.
2. Challenge of show cause notice in W.P.No.899 of 2013.
3. Direction to release goods pending adjudication proceedings in W.P.No.16186 of 2014.
4. Consideration of case for release of goods pending adjudication proceedings.
5. Modification of conditions for release of goods by the High Court.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to release goods subject to deposit of 40% of the differential duty and execution of a bond. The Customs Department challenged this direction, leading to the appeal before the High Court.

2. The first respondent had challenged a show cause notice in W.P.No.899 of 2013. Subsequently, in W.P.No.16186 of 2014, the first respondent sought a direction to release the goods pending adjudication proceedings, which was granted by the learned Single Judge with certain conditions.

3. The main issue considered by the High Court was whether the first respondent had established a case for the release of goods pending adjudication proceedings. The High Court analyzed the circumstances and the conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge in this regard.

4. The High Court, after hearing both parties, modified the conditions set by the learned Single Judge. Instead of 40%, the High Court directed the first respondent to pay 50% of the differential duty for the release of goods during the ongoing proceedings. The other conditions remained unchanged.

5. The High Court emphasized the importance of justice and balanced the interests of both parties. It directed the release of goods upon payment of 50% of the differential duty and execution of the bond within a week. Additionally, the High Court allowed the Customs Department to seek an early listing of the pending writ petition for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues surrounding the release of goods pending adjudication proceedings, modifying the conditions set by the Single Judge to ensure a fair balance between the interests of the parties involved.