2018 (3) TMI 1558 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of goods - quantum of bond and bank guarantee - duty free import - DFIA scheme - import of Maize Corn - Held that - the issue relates to provisional release of the goods. The appellant, reserving its right to contest the Revenue s stand, is seeking provisional release of the goods inasmuch as the demurrage has gone very high - it is not justified to direct the appellant, at this stage, to deposit the entire ₹ 17 lakhs - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding provisional release of imported goods under DFIA scheme.
2. Appellant's contention of misdeclaration and justification for provisional release.
3. Revenue's argument of misdeclaration and higher grade of imported goods.
4. Decision on the amount to be deposited for provisional release.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute over the provisional release of imported goods under the Duty-Free Import Authorization (DFIA) scheme. The appellant imported 'Maize Corn' under the scheme, but the Revenue contended that the goods were actually 'popcorn grade of maize corn', not eligible for duty-free import under DFIA.

2. The appellant argued that the goods mentioned in the DFIA license were maize corn without specifying the variety. They cited a Bombay High Court case to support their claim that if the import is in accordance with the license, the Revenue cannot take action against the importer. The appellant, being a regular importer, offered to deposit 25% of the duty amount and execute a Bond equivalent to the assessable value of the goods for provisional release.

3. The Revenue countered by referring to the Foreign Trade Policy, which mandates specific input descriptions by importers. They asserted that the imported goods were of a higher grade than permitted, constituting misdeclaration. The issue primarily revolved around the provisional release of the goods, considering the high demurrage costs incurred by the appellant compared to the value of the goods and duty involved.

4. After considering the arguments and circumstances, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit 30% of the duty in cash and execute a Bond for the remaining amount within four weeks for the provisional release of the goods. This decision aimed to balance the interests of the appellant as a regular importer and the Revenue, ensuring the secure release of the goods pending the final decision.

This comprehensive analysis outlines the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal principles, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the provisional release of the imported goods under the DFIA scheme.