9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 817 - HC - CustomsDuty drawback claim - Sections 74 and 75 - Held that - Circular No.1/2011-Customs dated 4.11.2011 and Circular No.30/2013-Customs dated 5.8.2013 require exporter to execute a bond of an amount equal to the value of goods and furnish appropriate security in order to cover the redemption fine and penalty in case goods are found to be liable to confiscation. We have directed the petitioner to furnish bond of 100% value of the goods. Therefore, our order is in consonance with the Circulars issued by the Customs Department. - goods of the petitioner shall be released for export expeditiously preferably within a period of one week from the date of copy of this order is produced before respondent No.2 provided the petitioner furnishes bond equal to the amount of seized goods other than cash and bank guarantee - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Claim for duty drawback under different Customs Act chapters; Discrepancy in weight of exported material; Compliance with Circulars for executing bond and furnishing security. Analysis: The petitioner claimed duty drawback under Sections 74 and 75 of the Customs Act under Chapter Heading 7318, while the respondents claimed duty drawback under Chapter Heading 7308 at 1.9%. There was a discrepancy in the weight of the material to be exported, with the petitioner showing more weight. The petitioner agreed not to claim duty drawback under any head until the matter was conclusively decided. The respondent's advocate relied on Circular No.1/2011-Customs and Circular No.30/2013-Customs. These Circulars mandated exporters to execute a bond equal to the value of goods and provide appropriate security to cover redemption fines and penalties if goods were liable for confiscation. The court directed the petitioner to furnish a bond equivalent to 100% of the goods' value, aligning the order with the Customs Department Circulars. As a result of the above considerations, the court ordered the expeditious release of the petitioner's goods for export within a week, contingent on the petitioner furnishing a bond equal to the seized goods' value, excluding cash and bank guarantees. The authority was mandated to comply with this order. Consequently, with the outlined observations, the petition was disposed of, and direct service was permitted for compliance purposes.
|
