9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the duty claimed by the Respondents minus the duty already paid by the Appellants in the first instance. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e [WP (C) No. 8787/2007 decided on 19th December, 2007] that provisional release of the goods is permissible under the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 1963 and the terms and conditions therein would be applicable to the facts of this case. Reliance is placed upon Regulation 2 thereof which reads as follows : - "REGULATION 2. Conditions for allowing provisional assessment.- Where the proper officer on account of any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), is not able to make a final assessment of the duty on the imported goods or the export goods, as the case may be, he shall make an estimate of the duty that is most likely to be levied hereinafter referred to as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act permits the Respondents to impose appropriate conditions for the release of the goods. It is submitted that the goods were diverted contrary to the Open General Licence. There is, therefore, a violation of Section 111(o) of the Act and it is under these circumstances that the goods were seized. If the Appellants desire to have release of the goods, they must comply with the conditions laid down under Section 110A of the Act. It is submitted that the conditions laid down on the facts of this case are eminently reasonable and do not require any interference by this Court. 8. Section 111(o) and Section 110A of the Customs Act read as follows :- "111. Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. -- The following goods brought from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zure under Section 110A of the Act, particularly in a case such as the present where the imported goods were unconditionally cleared by the Customs Authorities in the first instance. 10. That being the position, there is no option but to permit the release of the goods of the Appellants on their furnishing a bond of 20% of the differential duty that is to say the duty claimed by the Respondents minus the duty already paid by the Appellants in the first instance. Condition No. (i) imposed by the order dated 9th January, 2008 would stand modified to that extent. 11. Insofar as the second condition is concerned (requiring the Appellants to furnish 25% of the value of the goods by way of a bank guarantee) we cannot overlook the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
