2017 (10) TMI 1138 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of seized goods - Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - case of the revenue is that as Swatch Group (India) Pvt. Ltd, the importer has cleared the watches by declaring RSP which is less than the RSP at which the appellants are selling the watches, therefore, M/s Swatch Group (India) Pvt. Ltd has misdeclared the value of the impugned goods - Whether in the facts and circumstances in the case, the goods can be released to the appellant being owner of the goods or not? - Held that - From the documents produced, it is clear that the appellant is the owner of the impugned goods - the goods are required to be released to the owner of the goods - decided in favor of appellant. Whether conditions imposed for provisional release are harsh to the appellant, if so, what should be the conditions for provisional release? - Held that - in case of Kuber Casting (P) Ltd. V/s Union of India 2013 (9) TMI 784 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT the Hon ble High Court after examining the issue held that the bank guarantee of 30 per cent of the value of the goods seized is harsh condition to the appellant and thereafter the Hon ble High Court direct to pay the differential duty and on payment of the differential duty, the Adjudicating Authority was directed to release the goods to the appellant - the appellant directed to pay the differential duty of ₹ 21,78,906/- on the seized goods for release of the goods provisionally. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the goods can be released to the appellant as the owner of the goods?
2. Whether the conditions for provisional release are harsh to the appellant, and if so, what should be the appropriate conditions?

Issue No. 1:
The appellant, a retailer, appealed against an order for the provisional release of seized goods, arguing ownership. The appellant purchased watches from the importer, Swatch Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. The appellant provided a certificate from the importer and invoices as proof of ownership. Section 110A of the Customs Act mandates release to the owner. The tribunal found the appellant to be the owner based on evidence, modifying the release condition accordingly.

Issue No. 2:
The tribunal noted that the conditions for provisional release were harsh. Citing a precedent, Kuber Casting (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, where a bank guarantee requirement was deemed harsh, the tribunal directed the appellant to pay the differential duty for release. Following this, the tribunal ordered the provisional release of goods to the appellant, M/s Ethos Ltd., subject to furnishing a bond and payment of the differential duty.

In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues, acknowledging ownership of the goods and adjusting the conditions for provisional release in line with legal precedents.