2016 (3) TMI 988 - HC - Customs

Seeking provisional release of seized goods with modification in conditions - Machines imported under EPCG scheme - Petitioner firm would be required to fulfill the export obligation in terms of the EPCG scheme authorization granted to it - Held that - without entering into the merits of the contentions of the rival parties, the interests of justice would be served if the order of provisional release of the seized goods is modified that the requirement of petitioner to furnish a bond for the full value of the goods is required to be sustained, the requirement of petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for full duty amount is required to be modified by directing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee to the extent of 30% of the duty amount in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD, New Delhi v. Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd 2011 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT and also requiring to furnish a bank guarantee of ₹ 43.50 lakh. - Petition disposed of

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge against interim orders passed by Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade and Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
2. Provisional release of seized goods and conditions imposed.
3. Disagreement on bank guarantee amount and conditions for release.
4. Interpretation of Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme and relevant legal provisions.

Issue 1: Challenge against interim orders
The petitioner challenged the interim orders passed by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade and the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner sought relief against the withdrawal of redemption, inclusion in Denied Entity List, and directions for fresh redemption request and provisional release of seized goods. The petitioner's counsel argued that the machines under seizure should be released to fulfill the export obligation within the stipulated time. Reference was made to the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme for possible extension of the export obligation period. The court noted the importance of releasing the seized goods to prevent deterioration and benefit both parties.

Issue 2: Provisional release of seized goods
The court analyzed the conditions for the provisional release of seized goods imposed by the Commissioner of Customs. Three conditions were identified: bond for full value of goods, bank guarantee for full duty amount, and bank guarantee equal to 25% of duty amount. The petitioner had no objection to the bond condition but contested the bank guarantee amounts as penal in nature. The court modified the conditions in line with a Supreme Court decision, directing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of 30% of the duty amount and an additional bank guarantee of a specific amount. The court emphasized the need to balance the interests of justice and the scheme's objectives.

Issue 3: Disagreement on bank guarantee amount
The respondent opposed the petition, alleging misrepresentation by the petitioner in obtaining an Export Obligation Discharge Certificate. The respondent argued in favor of the conditions imposed for the provisional release of goods and cited a Supreme Court decision for guidance. The court considered the arguments but ultimately modified the bank guarantee condition, taking into account the petitioner's willingness to comply with the revised terms. The court balanced the interests of both parties while ensuring compliance with legal provisions.

Issue 4: Interpretation of EPCG Scheme
The court interpreted the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme to determine the petitioner's obligations and the implications of the seized goods on fulfilling the export obligation. Reference was made to a Delhi High Court decision regarding the exercise of power under the Customs Act and the need for specific guidelines. The court emphasized the importance of releasing the machines to enable the petitioner to meet the export obligation within the prescribed time frame. The court's decision aimed at facilitating compliance with the scheme while addressing the concerns raised by both parties.

In conclusion, the court modified the conditions for the provisional release of seized goods, emphasizing the need to balance the interests of justice and the scheme's objectives. The judgment addressed the challenges against the interim orders and provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and precedents relevant to the case. The decision aimed to facilitate compliance with the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme while ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles.

← Previous Next →