2018 (9) TMI 515 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of goods - conditions and expeditious consideration of the adjudication - it is the allegation of the Department that the appellant had imported the goods in his name only to avoid detection if the import is made by the brother himself - Held that - Before adjudication there need not be a cash deposit, since payment of duty as per the declared value and execution of bond has been insisted. There is also a further bank guarantee for ₹ 3,00,000/- from a Nationalised Bank towards probable fine and penalty - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Conditional order for provisional release of imported goods; Discrimination in imposition of conditions; Cash deposit requirement before adjudication; Modification of conditions in the impugned order.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against a conditional order for the provisional release of goods imported by the appellant. The appellant challenged the conditions imposed in Exhibit P10 and sought parity with a previous instance involving his brother's import of similar goods. The appellant argued that there was no justification for the discriminatory treatment. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the stringent conditions were warranted due to a history of undervaluation in earlier imports by the appellant. The Department alleged that the appellant used his name for importation to evade detection compared to importing under his brother's name.

The court, after considering the arguments, decided not to interfere with the conditions imposed but modified them for fairness. The court ruled that a cash deposit before adjudication was unnecessary given the duty payment and bond execution requirements. The appellant was directed to furnish a bank guarantee for differential duty and an additional bond for probable fines and penalties. The conditions in the impugned order were thus altered, with some remaining unchanged. Consequently, the judgment of the Learned Single Judge was set aside, and the Writ Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

This judgment serves as a significant legal precedent in addressing issues related to the provisional release of imported goods, discrimination in condition imposition, and the modification of conditions in such cases. The court's decision highlights the importance of fairness and equity in imposing conditions while ensuring compliance with legal requirements and preventing potential evasion practices.