9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was deprecated - While accepting the writ petition partly, the order of provisional release was set aside retaining it to the extent of furnishing of bond equivalent to the value of the seized goods and deposit of differential duty - Availing of facility of provisional release, by no means, would be taken as acquiescence on the part of the petitioner to the order of seizure of goods which the petitioner would be within its right to challenge in appropriate proceedings. In a case where bank guarantee of 25% of value of goods under challenge was demanded, such condition was held to be not proper, particularly when the seized goods were cleared by the Customs and duty as demanded was paid - Reference may be made to Nav Shakti Industries Pv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guarantee/cash deposit/fix deposit, even to the extent of 25% of the full value of seized goods is certainly highly onerous condition which makes the relief of provisional release to be nugatory for them. - CWP No.7804 of 2013, CWP No.10279 of 2013, CWP No.17123 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 6-9-2013 - Rajive Bhalla And Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Kamal Sehgal and Shri Sunish Bindlish, Advocates ORDER Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon , J. These three writ petitions having common questions of facts and law to be adjudicated, are being decided together. The petitioners are engaged in importing and trading of goods. In their day-to-day conduct of bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IGM with an intention to evade custom duty. On request for provisional release of the goods from the petitioner, provisional release letter was issued imposing certain conditions, alleged to be onerous, and aggrieved of which action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition. Contesting the petitioner's claim, stand of respondent No.2 is that the petitioner had made misdeclaration about the description and weight of the goods at the time of filing IGMs. Provisional release was ordered on the request of the importer to avoid levy of further detention charges. Validity and legality of action of the respondents was asserted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and during that process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods ordered by the authorities, following conditions were imposed:- i. Furnishing of Bond for the full value of seized goods along with Bank Guarantee/cash deposit/fix deposit of nationalized Bank equal to 25% of value of seized goods; and ii. Payment of differential duty on the seized goods. The question is whether the conditions so imposed by the authorities are onerous and thus, are required to be set aside? It is a conceded case that duty has already been paid by the petitioner. There is dispute of classification of goods. Concededly the goods are not prohibited. Even though duty stood paid even prior to examination of the petitioner, chances of dispute of value and classification of the goods would normally be there. Now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manded was paid. Reference may be made to Nav Shakti Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD, New Delhi 2001 (267) E.L.T. 438. Modifying the order of High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had issued direction for clearance of the goods by the customs authorities on furnishing of a bank guarantee of 30% of the differential duty. In Zest Aviliation Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2013 (289) E.L.T. 243 (Delhi), bank guarantee of 30% of differential duty with undertaking of self-renewal till final disposal of the case was held to be reasonable and condition of bank guarantee of Rs.16.00 crore was termed as harsh and burdensome. Claim of the custom authorities is that the petitioner has indulged in ingenuine transacti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh deposit/fix deposit equal to 25% of the full value of seized goods is not only harsh but squeezes out the petitioner to the extent of pushing it out of the system. Goods were seized on 2.5.2013. Order of provisional release was communicated to the petitioner on 3.5.2013. Because of the onerous conditions imposed by the authorities, relief of provisional release could not be availed by the petitioner. Exercise of powers in such autocratic and despotic manner by the authorities is deprecated. While accepting the writ petition partly, the order of provisional release is set aside retaining it to the extent of furnishing of bond equivalent to the value of the seized goods and deposit of differential duty. Availing of facility of provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
