2016 (4) TMI 231 - HC - Customs

Seeking alternate remedy - against order of the Commissioner granting provisional release of goods - Onerous conditions imposed by the respondents - Held that - as was noticed in Spirotech Heat Exchangers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2016 (3) TMI 37 - DELHI HIGH COURT , since the Respondent does not appear to be inclined to follow the aforementioned orders and the binding order of the Supreme Court, and are compelling exporters and importers to approach this Court every time for relaxation of the conditions imposed for the provisional release of goods, relegating the Petitioner to a statutory remedy would not be efficacious. Consequently, the conditions imposed in the order dated 11th March, 2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export) are modified and the Court directs the provisional release of the goods in favour of the Petitioner subject to the Petitioner executing a bond in the sum equivalent to 100% of the re-determined value of the goods and furnishing security in the form of bank guarantee for a sum equivalent to 30% of the differential duty, with an auto renewal clause and as per RBI guidelines. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the conditions imposed for provisional release of goods by the Commissioner of Customs are onerous.
2. Whether the Petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal against the order of provisional release.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The High Court considered the question of whether the conditions set by the Commissioner of Customs for the provisional release of goods were burdensome. The Court noted the specific conditions imposed, including the execution of a bond, payment of duty, and execution of bank guarantees. It referred to a previous case where similar issues were addressed and modified conditions were set. The Court found that the Respondent was not adhering to previous orders and Supreme Court directives, leading to exporters and importers having to approach the Court repeatedly for relief. Consequently, the Court modified the conditions imposed by the Commissioner and directed the provisional release of goods to the Petitioner, subject to revised terms involving a bond equivalent to 100% of the goods' value and a bank guarantee for a portion of the differential duty, in line with RBI guidelines.

Issue 2:
The Respondent raised a preliminary objection, contending that the Petitioner had an alternative remedy through an appeal against the provisional release order. However, the Court, referencing a prior case, highlighted that due to the Respondent's failure to comply with previous orders and the binding Supreme Court decision, resorting to statutory remedies would not be effective. As a result, the Court concluded that requiring the Petitioner to pursue a statutory remedy would not be practical. Therefore, the Court decided to modify the conditions for provisional release, allowing the Petitioner to proceed with the release of goods under the revised terms, while keeping all rights and contentions of the parties open for adjudication proceedings.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues of the onerous conditions for provisional release of goods and the availability of alternative remedies. By modifying the conditions and allowing the release of goods under revised terms, the Court aimed to provide relief to the Petitioner while ensuring that all legal rights and contentions remain open for future adjudication proceedings.