2019 (4) TMI 1702 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of goods - Section 110(1) of the customs Act, 1962 - Seizure of goods on the belief that the goods have been imported in contravention of the SAFTA Provisions - HELD THAT - From the certificates accompanying the consignment, it is noted that the value addition norms have been certified by the Export Promotion Bureau of Bangladesh. The Export Promotion Bureau of Bangladesh has also issued certificates dated 30/10/2018 and 01/11/2018 signed by its Director covering the seven consignments. The benefit claimed has been supported by the necessary certificate; however, we take note of the fact that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has seized the goods covered in these consignments and are in the process of carrying out further investigations. Goods being of perishable nature, are required to be Provisional released in terms of Section 110A ibid. The Transaction value declared in the Bills of Entry is much higher. The amount of bond may be determined on the basis of tariff values at the relevant time. Bank guarantee/Security in addition to bond for provisional release - HELD THAT - The imported consignments have been accompanied by the necessary documents. Nothing on record indicates that the investigating Agency is considering such documents as forged or otherwise suspicious. If the benefit of the Notification is granted, no duty would be payable. The ends of justice will be met by execution of bond for 100% value of goods (determined on the basis of tariff value) with Bank guarantee for an amount of 20% of the applicable duties based on Tariff value. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Provisional Release Orders based on high Bank Guarantee amounts.

Analysis:
The case involves appeals filed against Provisional Release Orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata, concerning the import of Refined Palmolein Oil from Bangladesh under Notification No. 99/2011Customs. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seized the goods, suspecting a violation of SAFTA Provisions. The Commissioner allowed provisional release subject to executing a bond and Bank guarantee. The appellant challenged the high Bank Guarantee amounts, arguing for a re-determination based on applicable tariff values. The appellant contended that the goods originated from Bangladesh, met SAFTA conditions, and should be granted duty-free exemption. They also argued that the bond and Bank Guarantee should be based on tariff values, not transaction values. The Commissioner justified the orders based on CBEC circular 35/2017. The Tribunal noted the certificates supporting the duty exemption claim but acknowledged ongoing investigations by the DRI. Considering the perishable nature of the goods, provisional release was necessary. The Tribunal found the transaction value declared in the Bills of Entry higher than the tariff value, suggesting a re-calculation of the bond amount. Regarding the Bank guarantee, the Tribunal observed no evidence of document forgery and past instances of duty clearance under the same notification. Thus, the Tribunal ordered a bond for 100% of the goods' value based on tariff value and a Bank guarantee for 20% of applicable duties.