2018 (12) TMI 76 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of seized goods - reduction in the amount of bank guarantee required for the provisional release - Valuation - enhancement of value based on NIDB data - Held that - It is quite evident that the value that have been declared by the importer, has been enhanced as per NIDB data at the time of assessment of the consignments - there are no alternative, but to accept the same for the purposes of provisional release of the goods. The appellant is therefore directed to execute the bond of the enhanced value as per adjudication order backed by the Bank Guarantee of ₹ 20 lakhs in case of Bill of Entry No.30033470 and ₹ 15 lakhs for Bill of Entry No.3081944 - On Execution of Bond and Bank Guarantee as above, the Adjudicating Authority shall grant the provisional release of the consignment. The appeal filed by the Appellant is restored and disposed off in the above manner.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Provisional release of seized goods
2. Rehearing the matter as per High Court order

Analysis:

Issue 1: Provisional release of seized goods
The case involved a dispute regarding the provisional release of seized goods belonging to the appellant. The Tribunal, in its previous order dated 15.05.2018, had reduced the bank guarantee amount required for release. However, the High Court set aside this order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for rehearing within four weeks. The High Court emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the valuation of goods and the security terms set by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal revisited the issue, considering the value declared by the importer and the enhanced value based on NIDB data. It was found that the enhanced value as per NIDB data was acceptable for the provisional release of the goods. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to execute a bond and bank guarantee as per the adjudication order for the release of the consignment.

Issue 2: Rehearing the matter as per High Court order
Following the High Court's directive to rehear the matter within four weeks, the Tribunal received the order on 08.08.2018. Despite efforts to inform and involve the DRI in the proceedings, they remained absent without requesting an adjournment. The Tribunal, bound by the High Court's timeline, decided to dispose of the matter by providing reasonable opportunities to the parties. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the appellant's advocate regarding the valuation of goods and the absence of reliable pricing information from the DRI. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order dated 15.05.2018 regarding the terms and conditions for provisional release, directing the appellant to execute the necessary bond and bank guarantee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision addressed the issues raised by the High Court, ensuring compliance with the directives for rehearing the matter and determining the conditions for the provisional release of the seized goods.