2017 (2) TMI 932 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of confiscated goods - whether the petitioner is entitled to get the goods released provisionally u/s 110 A of the Customs Act by only after complying with the conditions stipulated in the impugned order? - Held that - t is not in dispute that the subject matter goods is not a prohibited items, so that the same can never be released either provisionally or otherwise. On the other hand, the fact remains that the respondents agreed to release the goods provisionally, however, by insisting upon the petitioner to comply with the conditions stipulated in the impugned communication. When the petitioner himself has come forward to protect the interest of the revenue by paying differential duty in full, this Court is of the view that further interest of the revenue can be protected if the petitioner furnishes a bond for a sum of ₹ 40,00,000/- and bank guarantee for ₹ 5,00,000/- instead of furnishing a bond for ₹ 16,62,974/- and bank guarantee for ₹ 20,00,000/- as sought for in the impugned order. Petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 110A of the Customs Act for release of imported goods provisionally; Justification of conditions imposed for provisional release of goods; Interpretation of safeguarding revenue interest in provisional release of goods.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in importing fabric items, filed a bill of entry for clearance of goods, which were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence due to alleged mis-declaration. The petitioner sought provisional release of the goods under Section 110A by paying admitted customs duty and the full differential duty amount. The impugned order required the petitioner to execute a bond and furnish a bank guarantee for the total value of the imported cargo, leading to the challenge in this writ petition.

The second respondent contended that the goods were seized due to mis-declaration, and the importer had paid the full differential duty amount. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence recommended provisional release under Section 110A, resulting in the impugned order with specific conditions for release.

The petitioner argued that having paid the entire differential duty amount, the imposition of further conditions for provisional release was unjustified. Citing a Division Bench decision, the petitioner proposed that provisional release could be granted even by paying 50% of the differential duty. The respondents, however, emphasized the need to safeguard revenue interest given the penalty provisions under the Customs Act.

The Court considered whether the petitioner should comply with the conditions in the impugned order for provisional release. Acknowledging the petitioner's payment of both admitted and differential duties, the Court found that the interest of the revenue could be protected by altering the conditions. It directed the petitioner to furnish a bond and bank guarantee in specific amounts, different from those in the impugned order, within a specified timeline for the release of the goods.

In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondents to release the goods upon the petitioner's compliance with the revised conditions. The Court's decision aimed to balance revenue protection while facilitating the provisional release of the imported goods, considering the petitioner's actions in paying the differential duty in full.