2016 (5) TMI 1042 - HC - Customs

Seeking release of bank guarantee - furnished at the time of provisional release of goods - Consignment seized - Mis-declaration and under-invoicing under Panchnama - Fine and penalty deposited - Respondent stated that he is not sure whether any writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission - Held that - the said lack of information should not lead to an adjournment as this Court only intends to direct the respondent to dispose of petitioner s representation by way of a speaking order within one week. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Release of bank guarantee by respondent.
2. Delay in releasing bond and bank guarantee despite settlement application.
3. Lack of information on writ petition challenging Settlement Commission's orders.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction to release the bank guarantee of ?43,27,338/- provided at the time of provisional release of goods seized by the respondent due to suspected mis-declaration and under-invoicing. The goods were released after payment of duty, execution of bond, and providing the bank guarantee. The settlement application was filed before the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission under Section 127C (5) of the Customs Act, 1962, which directed the release of bond and bank guarantee upon payment of fine and penalty by the petitioner.

2. Despite the petitioner depositing the fine and penalty, the respondent did not release the bond and bank guarantee. The petitioner made several representations requesting the release, but the respondent failed to act. The senior standing counsel for the respondent expressed uncertainty about any writ petition challenging the Settlement Commission's orders. The Court, however, decided not to adjourn the matter due to lack of information and directed the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation within one week by way of a speaking order.

3. The lack of information on any writ petition challenging the Settlement Commission's orders should not delay the release of the petitioner's bond and bank guarantee. The Court emphasized the need for prompt action by the respondent in addressing the petitioner's representations and ordered the disposal of the matter within a week. The writ petition and application were disposed of with this direction, ensuring the petitioner's rights are protected without unnecessary delays.