2021 (9) TMI 1547 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of the seized goods on execution of Bond and on furnishing of bank guarantee - non-speaking order - Import goods for home consumption - Section 110 A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Since the order communicated to the Appellant is similar to the communication dated April 24, 2020 that was received in the Appeal filed by Rudra Overseas 2020 (10) TMI 70 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , it would be proper if a similar order is passed in this case. In the present case also the goods are stated to be for home consumption and liable to deterioration. The Commissioner shall, therefore, pass an order for provisional release of the goods in the light of the aforesaid observations. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has stated that steps are being taken by the Department for disposal of the seized goods. In such circumstances, when an order for provisional release of the goods has been passed by the Commissioner, it is ordered that the goods seized shall not be disposed of for a period of eight weeks from today.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Provisional release of seized goods u/s 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Summary:
The appeal was against a communication by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, ICD Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, informing the appellant about the provisional release of goods subject to certain conditions. The appellant had imported goods for home consumption, which were seized under Panchnama. The Deputy Commissioner ordered the submission of a provisional duty bond and bank guarantee for customs duty and adjudication liabilities. The appellant challenged the non-speaking order, as the reasons for the release were not provided.

The appellant's counsel argued that the Adjudicating Authority can release goods pending adjudication by taking a bond with security and conditions. However, in this case, the order lacked reasons for the release decision. Section 110A of the Customs Act allows for the provisional release of goods pending final order, with the Adjudicating Authority required to make a decision and inform the owner of the reasons for release.

The Deputy Commissioner only informed the appellant about the provisional release order by the Commissioner without providing the order itself. Referring to a similar case, the Tribunal emphasized that the order for provisional release must show application of mind and reasons. As the goods were for home consumption and at risk of deterioration, the Commissioner was directed to pass a release order within two weeks and to refrain from disposing of the seized goods for eight weeks.

In conclusion, the communication of November 20, 2020, was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for the provisional release of goods pending adjudication, ensuring proper compliance with the provisions of the Customs Act.