9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1505 - AT - CustomsSeeking out of turn disposal of appeal - seeking provisional release of seized imported goods - HELD THAT - The records do contain evidence of the deposit of ₹ 97,00,000/- and that the imposition of condition of further deposit, in the light of the deposited amount, appears to have been ordered despite that. The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the terms of the provisional release after taking the submission of the importer on record - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Out-of-turn disposal of appeal challenging terms of provisional release communicated upon seizure of goods entered for import. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application seeking out-of-turn disposal of an appeal challenging the terms of provisional release communicated after the seizure of goods entered for import. The urgency for resolution is emphasized due to the consignment being under customs control. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the appeal could be disposed of based on factual submissions alone. The court, considering the urgency and agreement of both sides, allowed the miscellaneous application for early hearing and took up the appeal for disposal. The counsel highlighted that despite a deposit of ?97,00,000/-, the impugned communication ordered a security deposit of ?85,00,000/-, even though the differential duty was approximately ?58,00,000/- only. The Authorized Representative sought permission to obtain a report from the Commissionerate on this matter. The court observed that evidence of the deposit of ?97,00,000/- existed and questioned the imposition of a further deposit condition despite the deposited amount being substantial. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned communication and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the terms of the provisional release after recording the importer's submission. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing fairness and proper consideration of the deposited amount in determining the security deposit required for the release of the seized goods.
|
