2016 (9) TMI 1090 - HC - Customs

Condition for provisional release of goods - quasi-judicial order - maintainability - demand of differential duty - execution of bank guarantee of 30% of the differential duty - Held that - the condition for release is modified to the extent that instead of the entire differential duty the appellant be directed to deposit ₹ 15 lakhs. The other conditions would, however, remain undisturbed. The adjudicating officer should conclude the hearing at his earliest convenience and pass final orders - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against CESTAT order rejecting maintainability due to non-quasi-judicial nature of communication imposing conditions for provisional clearance.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the grievance of the appellant regarding the CESTAT order that rejected the appeal as not maintainable, stating that the letter imposing conditions for provisional clearance did not constitute a quasi-judicial order. The Court observed that the CESTAT overlooked the fact that the order of provisional release was appealed against and subsequently rejected by the Commissioner. The Court found the CESTAT's opinion untenable and noted that ordinarily, the matter would be remitted for CESTAT's consideration. However, both parties agreed that the dispute was narrow, leading the Court to make appropriate orders in the interest of both the Revenue and the appellant.

Regarding the provisional release of goods, the original condition required the appellant to provide a personal bond, deposit the differential duty amounting to Rs. 30 lakhs, and furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 9 lakhs, being 30% of the differential duty. Considering the circumstances, the Court modified the release condition, directing the appellant to deposit only Rs. 15 lakhs instead of the entire differential duty, while keeping the other conditions unchanged. The adjudicating officer was instructed to expedite the hearing and issue final orders promptly.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal on the specified terms, providing relief to the appellant by adjusting the deposit amount for provisional release and maintaining the remaining conditions, emphasizing the need for timely adjudication of the matter.