2018 (9) TMI 671 - AT - Customs

Furnishing of bank guarantee of 100% of differential duty - is the deposit is towards seizure of the goods or towards any past liability? - Held that - The deposit is towards the seizure of the goods. Moreover, as observed since there is no demand otherwise exist, this deposit has to be considered against the seizure of the goods in the present case - the Respondent - Commissioner is directed to accept the bank guarantee of 100% unpaid differential duty after adjusting the deposit already made - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction for furnishing bank guarantee for 100% of the differential duty.
2. Adjustment of amount deposited during investigation against the total differential duty.
3. Clarification on the nature of the deposit made during investigation.
4. Consideration of deposit against the seizure of goods.
5. Release of goods provisionally by the Commissioner.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case was the direction for furnishing a bank guarantee for 100% of the differential duty as ordered by the Tribunal in a previous order dated 02.07.2018. The applicant filed a Misc. Application seeking directions to the Respondent regarding the bank guarantee requirement.

2. The second issue revolved around the adjustment of the amount deposited by the applicant during the investigation against the total differential duty. The applicant argued that the deposit made should be considered while determining the bank guarantee amount, as it was related to the seizure of goods.

3. There was a dispute regarding the nature of the deposit made during the investigation. The Revenue contended that the amount deposited was towards past liability and could not be adjusted for the bank guarantee. However, the Tribunal found no evidence supporting this claim and noted that no Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued or any demand confirmed.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the letters submitted by the applicant to the Commissioner of Customs, which clearly indicated that the deposit was related to the seizure of goods. In the absence of any confirmed demand or SCN for past liability, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner to accept the bank guarantee for the unpaid differential duty after adjusting the deposit already made during the investigation.

5. As a result of the analysis, the Tribunal directed the Respondent - Commissioner to release the goods provisionally within 15 days of the order, subject to the condition of accepting the bank guarantee for the unpaid differential duty after considering the deposit made during the investigation.

Overall, the Tribunal allowed the Misc. Application in favor of the applicant, emphasizing the need to adjust the deposit made during the investigation against the differential duty and clarifying the nature of the deposit in connection with the seizure of goods.