2015 (12) TMI 1302 - HC - Customs

Demand of differential duty - Release of goods - Held that - Following the precedent of this court, there shall be a direction that the differential duty is to be assessed by the authorities and on such assessment and intimation, the same shall be paid by the petitioner along with actual duty payable. On such payment, the goods shall be released forthwith leaving the other issues open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. The assessment of differential duty shall be completed by the respondent concerned within a period of one week - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Release of goods, Provisional release, Assessment of goods value, Differential duty assessment, Interest of revenue vs. interest of importer, Market value declaration.

Release of Goods:
The petitioner imported garment packing and tailoring materials, declaring 1172 cartons, but 1328 cartons were found upon examination, with approximately 130 cartons in excess. The exporter admitted the mistake in sending excess goods. The petitioner requested provisional release of all 1328 cartons after paying duty on the excess goods, but the goods were not released. The court considered similar cases where provisional release was granted during adjudication proceedings.

Provisional Release and Differential Duty Assessment:
The court emphasized safeguarding revenue interests while considering the importer's interests. Factors like goods being prohibitory, requiring specific licenses, or being contraband were crucial. Since the import did not fall under these factors, the court directed assessment of differential duty by authorities. The petitioner was instructed to pay the assessed differential duty along with the actual duty payable for the goods to be released promptly, leaving other issues open for further proceedings.

Interest of Revenue vs. Interest of Importer:
The court balanced revenue protection and importer interests by considering market value declaration to evade duty payment. The judgment highlighted the importance of assessing differential duty to ensure fair payment and release of goods. The decision aimed to resolve the issue by directing the petitioner to pay the assessed differential duty promptly for the release of goods, with the assessment to be completed within one week.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed. The judgment provided a clear direction for the assessment and payment of differential duty to facilitate the release of goods, while maintaining the balance between revenue protection and importer interests.