2021 (8) TMI 969 - HC - Customs

Provisional release for re-export of the goods - mis-declaration of declared goods - exaggerated value of the goods - suppression misdeclaration misclassification and import of prohibited goods - HELD THAT - The petitioner is a 100% export-oriented unit and thus any difference in the declaration of the value of the goods to be exported by the petitioner would not make much difference as the petitioner would be entitled to seek 100% refund of the duty paid. The petitioner is directed to furnish a bond amounting to 15 crores within seven days of the petitioner submitting the said bond and complying with the other formalities as per law the respondents are directed to provisionally release the goods in question for re-export. The writ petition has been disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Alleged act of omission by Customs Department in not giving effect to the order for provisional release of goods for re-export.

The judgment involves a petition filed against the Customs Department for not implementing an order by the Appellate Authority directing the provisional release of goods for re-export upon furnishing a bond. The petitioner had exported goods to a Sister Concern in Dubai, which were later returned and found to be different from the exported items, leading to detention. The petitioner sought provisional release for re-export, which was initially denied but later allowed by the Appellate Authority. However, the goods were still not released, prompting the petition. The respondents argued that the petitioner mis-declared the goods to evade customs duty, and penalties and criminal proceedings were being considered. The petitioner offered to furnish a bond for the exaggerated value of goods and penalties, highlighting the need to secure the revenue's interest amidst ongoing prosecution.

The Court considered previous orders permitting similar actions and the export-oriented nature of the petitioner. It noted that the goods had limited shelf life and could deteriorate, emphasizing the balance between the petitioner's rights and revenue interests. The judgment directed the petitioner to furnish a bond of ?15 crores, after which the goods would be provisionally released for re-export. The petitioner was allowed to use the same nomenclature for re-export, with a clear disclaimer that it would not bind the Department. The Court clarified that its observations were solely for provisional release purposes and did not reflect the main issue's merits, granting liberty to the petitioner to address any further concerns through appropriate legal procedures. The judgment also disposed of any related pending applications following the petition's resolution.