9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1261 - HC - CustomsDemand of differential duty - Execution of Bond for an amount equal to the assessable value of the seized goods - HELD THAT - We are inclined to relax the conditions imposed by adjudicating authority in view of Petitioner s statement that Petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.1.50 Crores with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. Mr. Priydarshi Manish states that Petitioner will not apply for the return of money until the Appeal is disposed by CESTAT. Statement accepted. Mr. Priydarshi Manish appearing for Petitioner prays that the goods being perishable, the same may be allowed to be cleared and also CESTAT be directed to hear Petitioner s Appeal expeditiously. Mr. Priydarshi Manish also submitted that a similar matter has been filed before the Delhi High Court by another importer/purchaser and the Delhi High Court had modified conditions fixed by the adjudicating authority. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Alleged undervaluation of goods by the Petitioner leading to a search by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). 2. Seizure of goods and subsequent adjudication order by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. 3. Petitioner's Appeal against the adjudication order dismissed, leading to an Appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). 4. Petitioner's request for expeditious hearing of the Appeal due to perishable nature of goods. Analysis: Issue 1: The Petitioner was accused of undervaluation of goods, specifically "Basa Fish Fillets," leading to a search by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on their business premises. The Petitioner was issued summons and made a deposit of Rs.1.50 Crores under protest. The goods were seized, and an adjudication order by the Additional Commissioner of Customs imposed conditions for the provisional release of goods. Issue 2: The adjudication order required the Petitioner to pay a differential duty, execute a bond, and furnish a security deposit or bank guarantee. The Petitioner filed an Appeal against this order, which was subsequently dismissed. The Petitioner then approached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) seeking relief and an expedited hearing. Issue 3: The Appeal before CESTAT was pending, and the Petitioner sought an early hearing for the Appeal due to the perishable nature of the goods. The High Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, decided to relax the conditions imposed by the adjudicating authority based on the Petitioner's statement that the deposited amount would not be reclaimed until the Appeal was resolved. Issue 4: The High Court directed the Petitioner to provide a bank guarantee for the differential duty and execute a bond for the full value of the goods. Upon satisfaction of these conditions, the subject goods were to be released by the Revenue authority. The Court also clarified that the Petitioner could request an expedited hearing of the Appeal when the early hearing Application was being considered by CESTAT. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the Petition, making necessary orders for the release of goods and the conditions to be met by the Petitioner. The Court emphasized that no observations were made on the merits of the case, and the certified copy of the order was to be expedited for all parties involved.
|
