2019 (10) TMI 697 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of imported goods - Ld. Principal Commissioner has directed to furnish bond of full value of the seized goods and bank guarantee of ₹ 85Lakh for provisional release - HELD THAT - It appears that while passing the said order, the Principal Commissioner has not considered the amount of duty, interest and penalty of ₹ 87,05,435/- already deposited by the appellant. Therefore, the amount deposited by the appellant appears to be sufficient as security. However, on perusal of appellant s request for reconsideration of the condition for release of the goods vide letter dated 06.08.2019, we find that appellant themselves have proposed to give bank guarantee for 25% of the bond amount on the ground that major amount of ₹ 87Lakh has already been paid. It will be sufficient to safeguard the interests of the Revenue, if bank guarantee of 25% of the bond amount is furnished. Accordingly, the amount of bank guarantee reduced from ₹ 85 Lakh to 25% value of the seized goods. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
- Provisional release of imported goods with conditions of furnishing bond and bank guarantee

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order-in-original related to the provisional release of imported goods, where the Principal Commissioner imposed a condition requiring the appellant to furnish a bond of the full value of the seized goods and provide a bank guarantee of ?85 Lakhs. The appellant challenged this condition, arguing that they had already paid the entire duty, interest, and penalty amounting to ?87,05,435, which exceeded the bank guarantee amount demanded by the department.

During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel contended that the bank guarantee of ?85 Lakhs was unnecessary since the duty, interest, and penalty had been fully paid. On the other hand, the Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue cited a previous Tribunal case where a bank guarantee for the entire differential duty and 25% of the goods' value was demanded in a similar situation.

After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the Principal Commissioner had not taken into account the amount already deposited by the appellant when imposing the bank guarantee condition. The Tribunal found the appellant's deposit of ?87,05,435 to be sufficient as security. However, upon reviewing the appellant's request for reconsideration, where they proposed a bank guarantee for 25% of the bond amount due to the substantial payment made, the Tribunal deemed this proposal adequate to protect the Revenue's interests. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the bank guarantee requirement from ?85 Lakhs to 25% of the seized goods' value.

In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned order by reducing the bank guarantee amount and partially allowing the appeal. The decision was pronounced in open court on 27.09.2019.