2008 (2) TMI 348 - AT - Customs

Seizure of goods imported - held that seized goods shall released provisionally by the authority without insisting for licence because provisional release of seized goods on payment of fine cannot be with a condition - appeal of assessee is allowed held that order of provisional release in adjudication and passed by Commissioner though intimated by Jt. Commissioner to appellant is in nature of an adjudicating order and it is appealable

Summary

Issues involved:
Seizure of electronic goods imported by the appellant, Provisional release conditions set by the Commissioner of Customs, Appeal against the provisional release conditions.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Seizure of electronic goods imported by the appellant
The issue in this case revolves around the seizure of electronic goods imported by the appellant, which were suspected to be misdeclared and liable for seizure under the Customs Act, 1962. The officers of the Revenue conducted a detailed examination of the goods and made a panchanama, leading to the detention and subsequent seizure of the consignment. The appellant sought provisional release, which was granted subject to specific conditions set by the Commissioner of Customs.

Issue 2: Provisional release conditions set by the Commissioner of Customs
The Commissioner of Customs imposed stringent conditions for the provisional release of the seized goods, including the production of a license for importing Air Conditioners, execution of a bond for the full assessable value, and a bank guarantee of Rs. 50 lakhs. The appellant challenged these conditions, arguing that they were excessive and not in line with the provisions of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contended that the bond amount and bank guarantee were disproportionate to the duty liability and value of the goods.

Issue 3: Appeal against the provisional release conditions
The appellant appealed against the conditions set by the Commissioner of Customs for the provisional release of the goods. The appellant's counsel argued that the conditions were harsh and not in line with the statutory provisions governing provisional release under the Customs Act, 1962. The counsel contended that the order for provisional release, though interlocutory in nature, was appealable as it was passed by an authority competent to do so under the Act.

Judgment:
The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Section 110A, governing the provisional release of seized goods. The Tribunal held that the order for provisional release passed by the Commissioner of Customs was appealable, rejecting the objections raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal set aside the conditions imposed by the Commissioner, modifying them to require the appellant to execute a bond for the full market value of the goods and offer a security deposit of 25% of the duty liability. The Tribunal directed the release of the goods provisionally within three days upon satisfaction of the revised conditions, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.