2019 (12) TMI 1629 - HC - Customs

Seeking provisional release of seized goods - terms and conditions of seeking bank guarantee, restraining of challenge to valuation etc are arbitrary or not - it is urged that the petitioner (s) have already deposited cash amounts of Rs.15,00,000/- each qua two different seizures, which have not been taken into account while ordering the amounts under proposed Bank Guarantees - HELD THAT - The authorities are directed, through counsel, to re-examine the issue and pass supplementary/modified order of release. The authorities may also consider giving an opportunity to explain to the petitioner as well before passing any such order. List for consideration on 15.01.2020.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging terms and conditions of provisional release orders; Non-consideration of deposited cash amounts in ordering bank guarantees.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Justice Jaswant Singh of the Punjab and Haryana High Court pertains to the challenge raised by the petitioner(s) regarding the terms and conditions of provisional release orders issued by customs authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contended that the conditions, such as seeking bank guarantees and restraining challenges to valuation, were arbitrary and contrary to established legal principles. The counsel cited various precedents set by the Court in cases like Bajrangbali Trading Company v. Union of India, Amit Enterprises v. Union of India, Shilpi Crafts v. Union of India, ERA International v. Union of India, Gaurav Electronics v. Addl. Commissioner of Cus., Sahnewal, Kuber Casting (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, and Century Knitters (India) Ltd. v. Union of India to support their argument.

Furthermore, it was argued that the authorities failed to consider the cash amounts of Rs.15,00,000/- each already deposited by the petitioner(s) in relation to two separate seizures when ordering the amounts under the proposed bank guarantees. In light of these contentions, the Court directed the authorities, through counsel, to re-examine the issue and issue a supplementary or modified release order. The authorities were also instructed to provide an opportunity for the petitioner(s) to explain their position before passing any such order. The case was listed for consideration on 15.01.2020, and a photocopy of the order was to be placed on the file of the connected case.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to legal principles and ensuring that the terms and conditions of provisional release orders are in line with established laws and precedents. It also emphasizes the need for authorities to consider all relevant factors, such as previously deposited amounts, when determining the requirements for bank guarantees in such cases.