2020 (2) TMI 1560 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of seized goods on execution of a bank guarantee for the full seizure value and a security deposit - case of appellant is that seizure value taken by the Customs is much higher than the prevailing market value - HELD THAT - After hearing both sides and considering the totality of facts of the case, the interests of justice would be met if the appellant gives a bond for the entire seizure value of the goods and makes a Security Deposit of ₹ 15.00 Lakhs in each of these cases. On execution of bonds and payment of security deposits, the seized goods shall be provisionally released. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against provisional release order with high bond value and security deposit compared to market value.

Analysis:
The appellant filed two appeals against provisional release orders for seized goods, where the Customs imposed high bond value and security deposit. The appellant argued that the seizure value by Customs was much higher than the market value, making it financially unviable to meet the conditions for release. The appellant cited judgments from the Hon'ble High Courts of Calcutta and Allahabad, emphasizing that redemption fine should not exceed 25% of the goods' value and that a security of 25% should suffice for release. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative supported the release orders, citing CBEC Circular No.35/2017-CUS and asserting that the conditions were reasonable. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal found it just to require the appellant to provide a bond for the full seizure value and a security deposit of ?15.00 Lakhs in each case for the provisional release of the goods. Upon compliance with these conditions, the seized goods would be provisionally released, thereby disposing of the appeals.

This judgment highlights the importance of balancing the interests of justice with the financial burden on the appellant in cases of provisional release of seized goods. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides, the relevant legal precedents, and the Customs Circular to arrive at a decision that aimed to address the concerns raised by the appellant while ensuring compliance with the regulatory framework. By reducing the security deposit requirement and setting a bond value based on the entire seizure value, the Tribunal sought to facilitate the provisional release of the goods without excessively burdening the appellant. The judgment reflects a nuanced approach to resolving disputes related to customs seizures, taking into account both legal principles and practical considerations to achieve a fair outcome for all parties involved.