2017 (7) TMI 834 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of detained goods - the Department is insisting upon furnishing of bank guarantee for the penalty amount, etc. - Held that - seeking security in the form of bank guarantee is uncalled for and in a sense, dilutes the very essence of the order - the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents to grant provisional release of the goods subject to the petitioners complying with the conditions imposed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 43062 to 43070 of 2016 and W.P.Nos.1620 to 1628 of 2017 respectively dated 22.12.2016 and 25.1.2017 - petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction sought for release of goods covered by specific shipping bills for export.
2. Challenge to conditions imposed by Commissioner of Customs for provisional release.
3. Dispute over requirement of bank guarantee for penalty amount.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitioners sought a direction to release goods covered by specific shipping bills for export. They relied on an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs in a related case. The petitioners did not object to most conditions imposed but were aggrieved by the requirement to pay appropriate export duty for provisional release. The Court relaxed this condition by allowing a bank guarantee equivalent to 30% of export duty instead. The Court maintained other conditions while granting provisional release of the goods.

2. Despite the Court's order, the Department continued to insist on a bank guarantee for the penalty amount. The petitioners filed new writ petitions challenging this requirement. The Court observed that seeking a bank guarantee for penalty diluted the essence of its previous order. The Court stayed the requirement for a bank guarantee and directed the immediate release of goods upon fulfilling conditions from the previous order.

3. The petitioners argued that their case was similar to previous cases where the Court's conditional orders were complied with. The Department, however, resisted, stating that writ appeals had been filed against the previous order. The Court noted that the previous orders had not been stayed or modified and that the Department had complied with similar directions in identical cases. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to grant provisional release of goods subject to compliance with conditions from previous orders within 12 weeks. No costs were awarded, and related applications were closed.