2008 (12) TMI 221 - HC - Customs

Release of goods - Pendency of appeal - Held that - Since the invoice value has not been accepted by the customs authorities and the matter is to be adjudicated upon by the appellate authority under the Act, it may not be justified to keep the vehicles with the dept. itself lying in the open. To protect the interest of the revenue it would only be appropriate that the vehicles are released to the custody of the petitioners on conditions. Also there is no dispute regarding the identity of the importer. There is no case registered against the petitioner for contravention of any penal provision under the Customs Act. The petitioner shall remit the duty payable as per the invoice value, viz; ₹ 14,57,712/- along with 50% of the amount imposed as fine and penalty viz; ₹ 3 Lakhs plus ₹ 1 Lakh within one week from today. The petitioner shall also furnish bank guarantee for an amount of ₹ 22,66,690/- (Twenty two lakhs sixty six thousand six hundred and ninety only).

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in the assessment of the value of imported vehicles by customs authorities.
2. Delay in releasing the vehicles leading to unnecessary demurrage charges.
3. Appeal filed against the adjudication orders.
4. Request for direction to release the vehicles pending appeal proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses two writ petitions concerning the import of vehicles where the customs authorities disputed the invoice values. In the first case, a Hummer H2 car was imported, and in the second case, a Volkswagen Beetle. The adjudicating authority assessed higher values than those mentioned in the invoices, leading to the imposition of fines, penalties, and differential duties.

2. The petitioner in the Hummer H2 case was asked to pay a fine of Rs. 6 Lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs for the release of the vehicle pending appeal. Similarly, in the Volkswagen Beetle case, the petitioner was directed to pay differential duty, fines, and penalties. The delay in releasing the vehicles resulted in demurrage charges, prompting the petitioners to seek immediate release pending the appeal process.

3. The judge acknowledged the pending appeals against the adjudication orders and emphasized the need to balance the interests of the revenue department with the petitioners' rights. Considering no criminal charges against the importers and the necessity to prevent further demurrage costs, the judge decided to grant conditional release of the vehicles to the petitioners.

4. The judgment outlined specific directions for each petitioner regarding the payment of duties, fines, penalties, demurrage charges, and the provision of bank guarantees. These conditions aimed to secure the revenue interests while allowing the petitioners to regain custody of their vehicles. The judgment also permitted the petitioners to seek recovery of amounts paid in case of successful proceedings against the customs department.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the discrepancies in vehicle valuation, the need for timely release to avoid additional costs, and provided detailed directions for conditional release pending appeal proceedings, ensuring a balance between revenue protection and the petitioners' rights.