2021 (2) TMI 912 - HC - Customs

Request of the petitioner for release of goods was directed provisionally after obtaining the bond for the full value of seized goods and after taking the bank guarantee as a security deposit - HELD THAT - The petition does not call for further adjudication. It is to be noticed that the ground of levy of differential duty of ₹ 1,18,04,236/- is a matter which the petitioner submits is being pursued by way of challenge before the Appellate Authority, which the petitioner intends to pursue. The respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to lift the goods under seizure and such release is however subject to the final outcome of appeal to be filed - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petition to set aside order imposing redemption fine for release of natural river sand and seeking direction for release of seized goods.

Analysis:
The petition was filed by M/s. Mysore Sales International Limited (MSIL) to challenge an order imposing redemption fine for the release of natural river sand. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 03.12.2020 and a writ of mandamus to direct the release of goods seized as per the Mahazar dated 17.06.2019. The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Sri G. Shivadass and Advocate Sri Prashanth Sabarish.

Upon notice, the respondent, Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, appeared for the case. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petition was specifically focused on the release of the seized goods as mentioned in the order. It was highlighted that the petitioner had complied with the requirements for release as per the communication dated 25.07.2019, by providing a bond covering the commercial value of the seized goods and a bank guarantee for 10% of the differential duty.

The petitioner had executed a P.D. Bond dated 29.07.2019 covering the commercial value of the seized goods and provided a bank guarantee for ?11,80,000, which was 10% of the differential duty claimed in the show cause notice. The validity of the bank guarantee was until 18.07.2021. The petitioner also mentioned that the challenge regarding the levy of differential duty was being pursued before the Appellate Authority.

Considering the submissions and facts presented, the court directed the respondent to allow the petitioner to lift the goods under seizure, subject to the final outcome of the appeal to be filed. The court disposed of the petition, stating that no further adjudication was required while keeping all contentions open for future proceedings.