9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 791 - HC - CustomsSeeking provisional release of the goods alongwith vehicle - section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The facts in the present case is similar to the case of BAANI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE ORS. 2022 (12) TMI 1255 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where it was held that by way ad-interim order, we direct that clause 3 of the impugned order shall stand suspended if the Petitioner complies with clause nos. 1 and 2 of the impugned order, subject to further order. The Petitioner shall keep the vehicle in good condition and shall not create third party rights in respect thereof, and shall produce the vehicle before the concerned Respondents as and when demanded. Accordingly, by way ad-interim order, we direct that subclause (vi) should be sub-clause (iii) of clause-7 of the impugned order shall stand suspended if the Petitioner complies with subclauses (iv) and (v) should be sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause-7 of the impugned order, subject to further order. The Petitioner shall keep the vehicle in good condition and shall not create third party rights in respect thereof, and shall produce the vehicle before the concerned Respondents as and when demanded. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the provisional release of goods under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, imposition of conditions for release, jurisdiction of the Proper Officer, alternate remedy of appeal, retrospective application of amendments, compliance with conditions for release, and suspension of certain clauses in the impugned order. Provisional Release of Goods: The Petitioner challenged an order for provisional release of goods imposed by Respondent No.3, contending the conditions were oppressive and harsh. The conditions included payment of a differential duty, execution of a bond, and a bank guarantee. The Petitioner sought adoption of a similar course of action as in a previous order. Alternate Remedy of Appeal: The Respondents argued the Petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal, citing previous court decisions. The Petitioner, however, claimed lack of jurisdiction by the seizing officer and questioned the retrospective application of amendments. The matter was adjourned for further consideration. Compliance with Conditions for Release: The Petitioner agreed to comply with two out of three conditions imposed for release but found the bank guarantee requirement oppressive. The Respondents argued against dilution of conditions due to an ongoing investigation into a large-scale scam. Suspension of Clauses in Impugned Order: After considering similar orders from other High Courts, the Court suspended clause 3 of the impugned order regarding the bank guarantee, if the Petitioner complied with the other conditions. The Petitioner was directed to keep the vehicle in good condition and not create third-party rights. Retention of Differential Duty: The Court retained the deposit of the differential duty and did not bifurcate it for the bank guarantee. The Petitioner was instructed to produce the vehicle when demanded and keep it in good condition. Availability of Statutory Appeal: The Court kept the issue of the availability of a statutory appeal open, informing the Petitioner that if an appeal was deemed maintainable, clause 3 of the impugned order might be restored. Suspension of Clauses in Another Order: In a separate judgment, the Court suspended sub-clause (iii) of the impugned order, subject to compliance with other sub-clauses, and put the matter for further consideration along with another petition. This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, addressing each issue involved and the Court's decisions regarding the provisional release of goods, compliance with conditions, suspension of clauses, and the availability of an appeal.
|
