2022 (6) TMI 61 - HC - Customs

Seeking provisional release of goods - furnishing a bank guarantee for the differential duty - Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - It is put to Mr Chandra, as to whether the respondents/revenue will be agreeable to the release of the subject goods upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the differential duty i.e., the amount equivalent to Rs.32,69,000/- and upon a bond being executed for the full value/estimated value of the subject goods. Mr Chandra and Mr Singh say that they would have no objection, if such a direction is issued by the Court. Matter disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Provisional release of subject goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962
- Deposit made by the petitioner concerning subject goods
- Adjudication order vis-à-vis subject imports
- Conditions imposed on the release of subject goods
- Agreement on release conditions by respondents/revenue
- Execution of bank guarantee and bond for release of subject goods

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a case involving the provisional release of subject goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The court noted that the Additional Commissioner of Customs had passed an order concerning the provisional release of the goods. It was highlighted that a significant amount of Rs.1.5 crores was deposited by the petitioner, which was related to the subject imports. The court inquired about the existence of an adjudication order regarding the subject imports, to which it was revealed that no such order had been passed. The petitioner's counsel emphasized that the deposit was made at the importer's behest, indicating a connection to the subject goods.

Further, attention was drawn to a document indicating payment made by the importer towards customs duty, redemption fine, and penalty for various bills of entry. The court observed that a part of the deposit made by the petitioner was indeed related to the subject imports. It was acknowledged that no adjudication order had been passed specifically concerning the subject imports, leading to the inference that the petitioner deposited the money to facilitate the release of the goods. The court deemed the conditions imposed in the order dated 29.04.2022 as burdensome.

Upon discussions with the respondents/revenue, it was proposed that the subject goods could be released if the petitioner furnished a bank guarantee for the differential duty amount and executed a bond for the full or estimated value of the goods. The respondents/revenue expressed no objection to this proposal. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the goods upon fulfillment of the specified conditions, with compliance to be reviewed on a set date. The judgment was concluded with the agreement of both parties on the release terms and the provision for digital copies of the order to be acted upon.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issue of provisional release of subject goods, the deposit made by the petitioner related to the goods, absence of an adjudication order, onerous conditions for release, agreement on revised release conditions, and the execution of a bank guarantee and bond for the release of the subject goods.