2015 (12) TMI 1199 - AT - Customs

Demand of CVD - Detention of goods - Held that - On a perusal of the appeal book the appellants have enclosed the Customs receipt dt. 13.8.2015 of predeposit of 6, 34, 162/- for both the appeals. Therefore appellants have duly complied with amended provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act in so far as these two appeals are concerned. Therefore we do not find any valid reason for detaining live consignments of 2418 monitors for realizing arrears of revenue pertaining to these appeals. Accordingly we direct the Revenue to release the goods detained under detention order dt. 1.12.2014 subject to payment of customs duty on the 2418 monitors if not paid already. - disputed CVD amount involved in all the three appeals is more than 1 crore and has recurring effect as regular imports are being done accordingly early hearing allowed - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Early hearing of appeals
2. Release of detained goods

Early Hearing of Appeals:
The appellant filed five miscellaneous applications, three for early hearing of appeals and two for release of goods. The advocate argued that the appeals involve a demand of Central Value Duty (CVD) exceeding Rs. 1 crore and have a recurring effect due to regular imports of computer monitors. He requested early hearing of the appeals. In Appeal Nos.C/41789/2014, predeposit was ordered and complied with, while the other two appeals were filed after an amendment and predeposit was made before filing. The Customs detained 2418 monitors despite compliance with predeposit, leading to a plea for release based on Rule 41. The Tribunal found no valid reason for detention and directed the Revenue to release the goods subject to payment of customs duty if not already paid.

Release of Detained Goods:
The advocate argued for invoking Rule 41 to release the detained goods, highlighting compliance with predeposit for the appeals. The AR contended that Rule 41 cannot be invoked as customs duty was already paid. After considering both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted the compliance with amended provisions of Section 129E for two appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Revenue to release the detained goods subject to payment of customs duty if not already paid. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no valid reason for detaining the goods pertaining to the two appeals.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the early hearing applications for appeals involving a significant CVD amount and recurring imports. The appeals were listed for a hearing on a specified date. All miscellaneous petitions were disposed of, and an order was issued accordingly. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, providing relief to the appellant regarding the release of detained goods and scheduling the appeals for an early hearing.