2015 (5) TMI 835 - HC - Customs

Non release of goods - Bank guarantee already furnished - Non adjudication of SCN alleging overvaluation - Held that - Respondent needs to quickly close the proceedings and adjudicate upon the show cause notice dated 05.11.2013. The petitioner s contention that the bank guarantee has served its purpose, has some merit - respondent is directed to adjudicate upon the show cause notice as expeditiously as possible, though not later than four weeks. While doing so, the concerned authority will also take a decision on the plea with regard to release of the bank guarantee in issue. - an interim reply was filed to the show cause notice dated 05.11.2013, as relied upon documents were not furnished by the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent will furnish all documents to the petitioner if, a request is made in that behalf. After documents are supplied, if filing of an additional reply is necessitated, an opportunity for that purpose will be given to the petitioner - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-return of bank guarantee despite receiving export proceeds and duty draw-back.
2. Delay in adjudication of show cause notice regarding alleged over-valuation of exported goods.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner raised two grievances in the petition. Firstly, the bank guarantee of Rs. 1 crore, furnished for the provisional release of goods, has not been returned despite receiving export proceeds and depositing duty draw-back amount with interest as directed by the respondents. Secondly, the show cause notice dated 05.11.2013, alleging over-valuation of exported goods, has not been adjudicated upon despite the petitioner filing an interim reply on 08.08.2014.

2. The petitioner, engaged in exporting horticulture and agriculture machinery parts since 2002, sought to export goods in 2013. After examination and fulfillment of conditions, the goods were allowed to be exported, and the petitioner received export proceeds and duty draw-back. However, a search was conducted at the petitioner's office premises, and various reports and statements were obtained by the respondent, leading to the issuance of the show cause notice.

3. The High Court directed the respondent to expeditiously adjudicate upon the show cause notice within four weeks and decide on the release of the bank guarantee. The petitioner's contention that the bank guarantee has served its purpose was acknowledged. The respondent was instructed to provide all necessary documents to the petitioner upon request, allowing for an additional reply if needed before passing an order on the show cause notice.

4. The court disposed of the writ petition with the above directions, emphasizing the importance of a timely resolution of the pending issues. The judgment aimed to ensure procedural fairness and prompt action on the part of the respondent in addressing the grievances raised by the petitioner regarding the bank guarantee and the pending show cause notice.