2024 (9) TMI 415 - AT - Customs

Request for provisional release of seized goods rejected - Used Multifunctional Digital Devices (MFD) (14 containers) - HELD THAT - It is seen from the records that there have been number of orders issued by this Tribunal and various High Courts accepting the fact that the impugned MFDs are not liable for absolute confiscation. In this regard, support found from judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. ATUL AUTOMATIONS PVT. LTD., AND PARAG DOMESTIC APPLIANCES 2019 (1) TMI 1324 - SUPREME COURT stating, the review petition filed by the revenue against the order has been dismissed. The Appellant s request for provisional release of goods was fully covered by the provisions of Section 110A of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed. Since, the this matter of provisional release of the goods is pending for last more than five years, in the interest of justice, the adjudicating authority is directed to order for provisional release of goods in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of this order. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Provisional release of seized goods under customs law.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the Commissioner of Customs' order rejecting the provisional release of seized goods, specifically 'Used Multifunctional Digital Devices (MFD).' The appellant had imported 14 containers of MFDs, which were seized by the DRI under Panchanama. The goods were alleged to be restricted for import as per a specific notification. The appellant sought provisional release of the goods, arguing that the valuation done by the Chartered Engineer was not in accordance with customs rules and circulars. The appellant relied on various documents, circulars, and judgments to support their claim for provisional release.

The Revenue, represented by the Superintendent (AR), supported the findings of the impugned order. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and reviewed the records. It noted that there were previous orders accepting that the MFDs were not liable for absolute confiscation. The Tribunal also referenced judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts in similar cases, emphasizing that the goods were eligible for provisional release under Section 110A of the Act.

The adjudicating authority heavily relied on a Board Circular, which was challenged in a High Court case where it was deemed contrary to the Act and void. The Tribunal found that the appellant's request for provisional release was covered by Section 110A of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to order for the provisional release of goods within one month in the interest of justice, considering the prolonged duration of the matter.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the appellant's appeal for provisional release of the seized goods, highlighting the applicability of Section 110A of the Act and setting aside the impugned order based on the legal provisions and precedents cited during the proceedings.