9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of serious nature had been framed against them in the show-cause notice and that the substantive dispute in this case was one of classification of the vessel - Order modified to such extent - Decided in favour of assessee. After taking into account all the relevant factors - The vessel can be provisionally released to the appellant - The adjudicating authority ought not to have imposed such harsh conditions - it was without particularising the revenue interest involved in the impugned vessel that the Commissioner required the appellant to furnish bank guarantee so as to safeguard the revenue interest. - Appeal No.E/2313/2012 - 625/2012 - Dated:- 6-9-2012 - Mr. P.G. Chacko and Mr. M. Veeraiyan, JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. Vikram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,248/-. On the basis of these results of investigations, show-cause notice dt. 08/06/2012 was issued to the appellant by the ADG of the DRI proposing: (a) to reclassify the vessel under SH 8903 99 90 and deny the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus dt. 01/03/2002 (Sl.No.352); (b) to reject the declared value of the vessel and redetermine its value at Rs.35,80,74,723/-; (c) to demand differential duty of Rs.6,92,37,774/- and interest thereon (the amounts already paid under protest towards duty and interest having been noted in the show-cause notice.); (d) to confiscate the vessel in terms of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act; (e) to impose penalties on the appellant under Sections 112(a) and 114A of the Act and (f) to appropriate the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 03.07.2012 produced as Annexure-A, insofar as the said order directs the petitioner to furnish security in the form of a bank guarantee with auto renewal clause for an amount of Rs.14,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Crores) for provisional release of the vessel referred to therein. 3. Shri N.R.Bhaskar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the aforesaid order is appealable under Section 129A (1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act' for short)). 4. A perusal of Section 129A (1)(a) of the Act will show that the order impugned herein is appealable. As the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs Act, 1962 and the guidelines/instructions issued from time to time by the Board in this regard. The aforesaid provisional release is ordered subject to the conditions of furnishing of bond for an amount equal to the value of the seized vessel i.e. Rs. 35,80,74,723/- (Rupees Thirty five Crore Eighty lakh Seventy Four thousand Seven hundred and Twenty Three only) with security in the form of bank Guarantee with auto renewal clause for an amount of Rs.14,00,00,000/-(Rupees Fourteen Crore only) so as to safeguard the revenue interest involved in the impugned vessel ordered for provisional release. Obviously, the Commissioner s order as communicated in the above letter to the appellant was passed under Section 110A of the Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rprises vs. UOI [2011(269) ELT 314 (P H)] (iii) Era International vs. UOI [2011(274) ELT 6 (P H)] (iv) Bhaiya Fibres Ltd. vs. ADG of Revenue Intelligence [2012(281) ELT 396 (Del.)] 7. The learned counsel has also reiterated the facts and circumstances stated in the appellants letter dt. 18/06/2012 to the Commissioner of Customs. On such facts and circumstances, counsel submits, the Commissioner ought not to have insisted on bond and bank guarantee. The learned counsel has also pointed out that the impugned order did not disclose any reason for stipulating such conditions. 8. We have heard the learned Commissioner(AR) also who has made an endeavour to justify the conditions stipulated by the Commissioner of Customs. 9. In his rejo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iously, the conditions stipulated for provisional release of the goods in the cited cases vary from case to case. In the instant case, admittedly, almost the entire amount of duty based on the value of the vessel as determined in the show-cause notice stands paid by the appellant. Going by the submissions of the counsel, we find that only a small amount of Rs.2 lakhs remains to be paid towards duty, which the appellant can deposit. The appellant also is said to be willing to deposit interest on duty. Considering the fact that the vessel imported by the appellant is not prohibited goods and that no offence of serious nature has been framed against them in the show-cause notice and that the substantive dispute in this case is one of classific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
