2017 (6) TMI 660 - AT - Customs

Modification of condition of provisional release of seized goods - appellant submits that the SIIB have initiated investigation into ten exporters, including the appellant herein. This being so, the terms of provisional release for identical export goods in respect of other exporters should also be extended to the appellants - Held that - That the appellant herein had not gone to the High Court along with the other nine exporters, does not make compelling reasons for denial of revised terms of provisional release of export goods to the appellant. This in our opinion, which is unjust and unfair. The revised terms of provisional release should be allowed to the goods seized from the appellants, on the same terms and conditions as has been extended to the other nine exporters. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of conditions of provisional release of seized goods.
2. Early hearing of appeal due to pending export consignments.
3. Investigation of alleged irregularities in export goods.
4. High Court orders regarding provisional release conditions.
5. Denial of revised terms of provisional release to one exporter.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed for modifying the conditions of provisional release of seized goods. The appellants requested early hearing due to pending export consignments to avoid demurrage charges. The Department initially seized goods of ten exporters for alleged irregularities in export goods not meeting specified norms.
2. The investigation by the SIIB revealed discrepancies in the export goods of the ten exporters. The Department allowed provisional release with specific conditions, including payment of export duty, execution of bonds, and sample collection. Nine exporters obtained a High Court order modifying the conditions, allowing a bank guarantee instead of security for fine and penalty.
3. The Department, based on the High Court order, directed the exporters to fulfill specific conditions for provisional release, including an indemnity bond and a bank guarantee. However, the High Court later stayed the requirement of a bank guarantee, emphasizing that the conditions should align with the previous court order.
4. The High Court reiterated its order, stating that the bank guarantee requirement was unnecessary and stayed the provision related to describing goods as "unfinished leather." Consequently, the exporters were allowed provisional release based on the court's directions, except for one appellant who did not receive the same facility.
5. During the hearing, the appellant argued for the extension of revised terms of provisional release, similar to other exporters, as they were also part of the common investigation. The Tribunal acknowledged the common investigation and directed that the revised terms of provisional release should be allowed to the appellant as well, ensuring fairness in treatment among all exporters involved in the investigation.