9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge of goods seizure under Customs Act, 1962 and seeking direction for release of seized goods.
The petitioner imported goods for home consumption and clearance was permitted by the proper officer u/s 47 of the Customs Act, 1962. A search was conducted at the petitioner's premises on the allegation of mis-declaration of imported goods' value. Raw material and finished goods were seized, and the petitioner was required to execute an entrustment-deed. Goods were not released pending inquiry. Contention raised that prolonged detention prejudices petitioner's rights. Respondent stated seizure was due to undervaluation of goods. Court held that goods cannot be retained indefinitely during proceedings. More than 6 months had passed since seizure. Respondent mentioned provisional release orders (Annexure R-3 and R-4) but petitioner had not complied with conditions. Petitioner argued conditions were too stringent compared to previous cases where bank guarantee was based on a different valuation method. Court directed provisional release upon furnishing bank guarantee based on specified valuation method and compliance with conditions in Annexure R-3. Goods to be released within a week of order receipt and bank guarantee submission. Local procurement aspect to be considered for determining bank guarantee. Additional bank guarantee of Rs. One lac for seized finished goods in factory. Writ petition disposed accordingly.
|
