9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1133 - AT - CustomsRequest to reconsider the amount of bank guarantee/ cash deposit ordered to be furnished - provisional release of imported Dry Dates - HELD THAT - The appellant imported the same goods valued at Rs. 4.08 Crores at Pipavav Port and in the same nature of dispute the goods were seized however in this Tribunal in KL INTERNATIONAL VERSUS C.C. -JAMNAGAR (PREV) , JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT 2022 (11) TMI 650 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , the appellant was allowed to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. One Crore for provisional release of the goods. Since in the present case, the same dispute is involved and the only difference is Port of import otherwise in the same facts and circumstances it has been decided in above said order that bank guarantee amount was reduced from Rs. 12 Crores to Rs. One Crore. Therefore, there is no reason to defy the order of this Tribunal for fixing the amount of bank guarantee/ cash deposit to be furnished for provisional release of the goods. Merely by issuing a show cause notice which is nothing but only proposals, the circumstances of the earlier case decided in the order dated 11.11.2022 and in the present case are not different, therefore on this count, the amount of bank guarantee cannot be enhanced. There are no reason that despite this Tribunal passed an order in the appellant s own case which was accepted by the Revenue why different yard sticks can be applied in the present case, particularly when all the facts and circumstances of the case involved in the Tribunal s order in KL International and in the present case are absolutely identical - the amount of bank guarantee must be reduced - the goods shall be provisionally released on execution of bond for total value of goods and on furnishing a bank guarantee/ cash security of Rs. 18 Lakh - appeal disposed off.
Issues:
The appeal against the order rejecting the request to reconsider the bank guarantee amount for provisional release of imported Dry Dates. Judgment Summary: Issue 1: Bank Guarantee Amount The appeal challenged the order directing the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs One Crore for provisional release of imported Dry Dates. The appellant argued that the bank guarantee amount should be reduced based on a previous Tribunal order dated 11.11.2022. The Tribunal found that the goods involved in both cases were similar, and in the earlier case, a bank guarantee of Rs. One Crore was fixed for goods valued at Rs. 4.08 Crores. Therefore, the Tribunal held that in the present case, against the value of goods amounting to Rs. 72,22,361/-, a proportionate bank guarantee of Rs. 18 Lakhs should be fixed. Issue 2: Show Cause Notice The Revenue contended that in the present case, a show cause notice was issued, unlike in the earlier case. However, the Tribunal held that the mere issuance of a show cause notice does not warrant an increase in the bank guarantee amount. The Tribunal emphasized that the circumstances of both cases were not different, and hence, the bank guarantee could not be enhanced based solely on the issuance of a show cause notice. Conclusion The Tribunal observed that all the facts and circumstances of the case in the Tribunal's earlier order dated 11.11.2022 and the present case were identical. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the bank guarantee amount must be reduced in line with the previous order. Consequently, the goods were ordered to be provisionally released on execution of a bond for the total value of goods and on furnishing a bank guarantee/cash security of Rs. 18 Lakh. The impugned order was modified accordingly, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. *(Pronounced in the open court on 26.07.2023)*
|
