2019 (10) TMI 1443 - HC - Customs

Provisional assessment and release of goods - demand of bank guarantee equivalent to 10% of differential duty - import of Areca Nuts - benefit of exemption under ISFTA Exemption Notification - HELD THAT - It is deemed appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the authorities to allow provisional release of the goods in favour of the petitioner subject to the petitioner executing a bond for a sum equivalent to the 100% of the value of goods and furnishing a security in the form of a Bank Guarantee for a sum of equivalent to 30% of the differential duty, with an auto renewal clause and as per RBI guidelines. The writ petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner's request for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside an impugned letter and direct acceptance of a bank guarantee for provisional assessment.
2. Dispute over release of imported goods despite furnishing bank guarantee and supporting documents.
3. Interpretation of Alert Circular regarding Areca Nuts imports under ISFTA.
4. Respondent's insistence on a 100% bank guarantee for provisional assessment.
5. Comparison with a similar case from Delhi High Court.
6. Decision on provisional release of goods with specific conditions.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to set aside an impugned letter and direct the acceptance of a bank guarantee equivalent to 10% of the differential duty for provisional assessment and release of imported goods. The petitioner, engaged in the business of importing areca nuts from Sri Lanka, faced non-release of goods despite fulfilling requirements, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

2. The dispute arose as the respondents did not release the impugned consignment despite the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee and necessary documents. The 2nd respondent insisted on a 100% bank guarantee based on an Alert Circular highlighting discrepancies in the origin of Areca Nuts imports from Sri Lanka, raising concerns about third country imports through Sri Lanka.

3. The interpretation of the Alert Circular dated 29.12.2015 revealed discrepancies in the origin of Areca Nuts imports from Sri Lanka, prompting the 2nd respondent to demand a 100% bank guarantee for provisional assessment. The circular highlighted concerns about imports not aligning with production figures of exporting countries, indicating potential misuse of ISFTA benefits.

4. The 2nd respondent justified the requirement of a 100% bank guarantee by citing specific references from Sri Lankan authorities regarding the origin of goods. Despite the petitioner's contention that the demand was solely based on the Alert Circular, the respondent emphasized the seriousness of the issue and the need to safeguard revenue, leading to the insistence on a higher bank guarantee.

5. The petitioner referenced a judgment from the Delhi High Court in a similar case and requested a similar order. The court considered the Delhi High Court judgment and decided to allow provisional release of goods to the petitioner subject to specific conditions, including executing a bond for 100% of the goods' value and furnishing a bank guarantee for 30% of the differential duty.

6. In light of the submissions and the Delhi High Court judgment, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing the authorities to provisionally release the goods to the petitioner upon fulfilling the specified conditions, including executing a bond and providing a bank guarantee with an auto-renewal clause as per RBI guidelines. The miscellaneous petitions were also disposed of accordingly.