2018 (7) TMI 1395 - AT - Customs

SEZ Unit - provisional release of goods - As per the Revenue, the ascertained value was higher than the declared value in the Bill of Entry with respect to three containers - Held that - Having considered the rival contentions and considering the fact that the goods are lying in the ICD, Pithampur, for about two years, the terms of provisional release are modified - Subject to fulfillment of the modified conditions and filing of compliance report before the concerned Customs authorities, the goods shall be released provisionally within three days. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of Interim Order for pre-deposit waiver.
2. Early hearing application.
3. Challenge to conditions of provisional release of goods.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Modification of Interim Order for pre-deposit waiver
The Appellants sought modification of the Interim Order dated 18.05.2018, which directed them to make a pre-deposit for the appeal to be listed for final hearing. The Appellants argued that since the impugned order did not confirm any duty demand or impose any penalty, the condition of pre-deposit should be waived in the interest of justice. The Tribunal, after considering the contention, found the prayer of the Appellants just and proper. Consequently, the Interim Order was modified to clarify that no pre-deposit was required in this case.

Issue 2: Early hearing application
The Appellants filed an application for early hearing, stating that they had challenged the impugned order of provisional release dated 19.04.2018, and the goods had been with the Customs Department for the last two years. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions and the duration of goods under seizure, allowed the application for early hearing of the appeal. With the consent of both parties, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal on merit.

Issue 3: Challenge to conditions of provisional release of goods
The Appellants, a SEZ Unit, challenged the conditions of provisional release of goods given in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The goods imported by the Appellants were subject to scrutiny by the DRI, which revealed discrepancies in the declared value compared to the ascertained value. The Customs Authorities directed provisional release on specific conditions, including execution of a bond, payment of customs duty, and furnishing a bank guarantee. After considering the circumstances and the duration of goods being held, the Tribunal modified the terms of provisional release. The execution of the bond was upheld, while the duty demanded was directed to be paid provisionally, and the bank guarantee amount was reduced. The goods were to be released provisionally within three days upon fulfillment of the modified conditions. Additionally, the Appellants were granted liberty to file a bill of entry or shipping bill for re-export of goods in other containers, subject to specified conditions and timelines.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal and miscellaneous applications in accordance with the modified conditions for provisional release of goods and granted necessary permissions for further actions by the Appellants.