2019 (5) TMI 1301 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of goods - allegation of the Department that the price value declared as well as the classification declared by the appellant is incorrect, is without any factual basis - Powers of Tribunal under Rule 41 of the CESTAT - HELD THAT - It is seen that the Bill-of-Entry was filed on 09.11.2016. The appellant has not filed any application for provisional release of the goods during the pendency of the proceedings before the authorities below. In case the appellant had filed such an application and the same was rejected, the appellant could have filed an appeal before the Tribunal against such rejection of provisional release application. The appellant has not opted for provisional release at the earliest opportunity i.e., during the pendency of proceedings before the adjudicating authority. After passing the impugned Order and confirming the mis-declaration, mis-classification of the goods and also confirmation of the duty demand and imposing redemption fine, the appellant cannot at this stage request for provisional release - Further, to consider the issue of provisional release at this stage, it would be necessary to hear the arguments in detail and the decision would touch the merits of the case itself. The issue of mis-declaration and mis-classification are the main allegations in the Show Cause Notice. The goods are not in the nature of easily perishable goods. The appellant has waited for around two years and four months to file this application for provisional release - Application for provisional release of the goods is therefore dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Provisional release of seized and confiscated goods
- Early hearing of the appeal

Provisional Release of Goods:
The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking provisional release of goods seized and confiscated as per the impugned Order dated 25.04.2018. The goods included Polyester Knitted Fabrics, Viscose Synthetic Fabrics, etc. The appellant argued that the declaration made in the Bill-of-Entry and other documents was correct, challenging the Department's allegation of incorrect price value and classification. The appellant invoked Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, claiming the Tribunal had the power to grant provisional release. However, the respondent opposed the application, noting the absence of a prior application for provisional release before the adjudicating authority. The respondent contended that Rule 41 did not empower the Tribunal to release goods during the appeal, especially when the Order-in-Original allowed redemption on payment of duty and fine. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal observed that the appellant did not apply for provisional release during the proceedings before lower authorities, which could have been appealed if rejected. The Tribunal found no genuine urgency for release, especially considering the delay of over two years in filing the application. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Application for provisional release was dismissed.

Early Hearing of the Appeal:
Despite dismissing the request for provisional release, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's plea for an early hearing of the appeal. The Tribunal granted the Miscellaneous Application for early hearing, directing the Registry to list the case for hearing on 25.05.2019. By allowing early hearing, the Tribunal aimed to address the appeal promptly, considering the contentions raised by the appellant regarding the confiscation and penalties imposed. The decision to expedite the appeal hearing demonstrated the Tribunal's willingness to address the case efficiently, ensuring timely resolution of the legal dispute.