2015 (6) TMI 152 - AT - Customs

Seizure of goods - provisional release of the goods - whether the conditions imposed for provisional release of the seized goods are excessive - Held that - Similarly placed goods have been allowed to be provisionally released by executing a bond equivalent to the value of seized goods without insisting for any Bank Guarantee/ Cash security. - The office of the Principle Commissioner of Customs, Mundra has also provisionally released the seized goods on execution of a Bond with respect to similarly placed exporters. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be proper to allow the appeals filed by the appellants by modifying the conditions of provisional release of the seized goods. - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Conditions imposed for provisional release of seized goods
- Jurisdiction to file appeal against provisional release order

Analysis:
1. Conditions for Provisional Release: The appellants filed shipping bills for claiming drawback under Customs Tariff Heading 73.08, but were investigated for over-valuation of goods. The appellants argued that the conditions imposed for provisional release of the seized goods were excessive, citing a judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The appellants contended that similarly placed goods were provisionally released by executing a bond equivalent to the value of seized goods without any bank guarantee or cash security. The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court had also modified the conditions of provisional release in a similar case. Consequently, the Tribunal found it appropriate to allow the appeals and modify the conditions for the provisional release of the seized goods.

2. Jurisdiction to File Appeal: The Revenue argued that the appellants had no jurisdiction to appeal against a provisional release order. The Revenue relied on a Larger Bench judgment which held that no appeal would lie with CESTAT against such orders. However, the appellants cited a case from the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court where it was directed to avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants also presented cases where CESTAT had modified the conditions of provisional release, indicating that appeals against such orders were entertained by other Benches. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that similar appeals were being entertained by other Benches and that the jurisdictional High Court had also modified the conditions of provisional release, leading to the decision to allow the appeals filed by the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ordered the provisional release of the seized goods based on the execution of bonds equivalent to the value of the goods, without requiring any bank guarantee or cash security. This decision was made in consideration of the excessive conditions imposed for provisional release and the precedents set by the jurisdictional High Court and other Benches of CESTAT. The order directed the necessary actions to be taken promptly due to the nature of the exports related to live consignments.