2020 (7) TMI 427 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of imported seized goods - appellant s grievance is that the terms of provisional release are very harsh and the goods may be allowed to be provisionally released only on furnishing of bond on payment of differential duty and without any bank guarantee - HELD THAT - The differential duty against the bills of entries Nos. 7740144 dated 22.08.2018 and 8549092 dated 22.10.2018 has been worked out and indicated in the show cause notice to ₹ 6,56,589/-. Also the appellant have already given bank guarantee of ₹ 13,69,682, however the same is against other bills of entries. But, since the adjudication to take place combinedly in respect of all the bills of entries including the present two bills of entries, the said bank guarantee amount can be adjusted against overall demand of penalty and fine, if any, imposed at the time of adjudication. The merit of the case is undervaluation of import goods which needs to be established beyond doubt. However, at the present stage, it is premature to opine on the conclusion of the merits of the case - the justice will be done if the appellant deposit principal duty at the time of clearance of the goods and furnish a bond of ₹ 99,66,273/- with bank guarantee of ₹ 4,00,000/- with auto renewal clause. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Provisional release of imported goods with harsh conditions.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the impugned order by the Learned Commissioner regarding the provisional release of imported goods covered under specific Bills of Entry. The Appellant argued that the terms for provisional release were harsh and requested release without a bank guarantee. The Counsel for the Appellant highlighted discrepancies in the differential duty amount and emphasized that pending show cause notice should prevent imposing stringent conditions. The Counsel cited relevant judgments to support the Appellant's stance.

The Revenue contended that the terms set for provisional release were appropriate due to strong evidence of undervaluation of the seized goods. After considering both sides' arguments and reviewing the records, the Tribunal acknowledged the issue of provisional release terms as the primary concern. The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal promptly after granting an early hearing application.

The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant's argument regarding the differential duty amount specified in the show cause notice. It noted that the Appellant had already provided a bank guarantee for a different set of bills of entries. The Tribunal decided that the existing bank guarantee could be adjusted against any penalty or fine imposed during adjudication for all bills of entries collectively. The Tribunal emphasized the need to establish undervaluation conclusively and refrained from making a final judgment on the case's merits at the current stage. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the Appellant to deposit the principal duty upon goods clearance and furnish a bond with a specified amount and bank guarantee clause for provisional release.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by modifying the terms for provisional release as per their decision. The early hearing application was also resolved accordingly.