9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e following conditions : "(a) Payment of differential duty on the basis of redetermined value as proposed by the DRI (DZU) through TR-6 Challan. (b) Furnishing a Bond equivalent to 100% of the redetermined assessable value as proposed by the DRI (DZU). (c) Securing a Bank Guarantee with a self-renewal cause equivalent to the 30% of the redetermined assessable values as proposed by DRI (DZU) for covering the redemption fine and penalty. (d) Furnishing of an undertaking that they will not dispute the identity of the goods during the course of adjudication/prosecution." 3. The petitioner imported four consignments allegedly of PU Coated Fabric under four Bills of Entry throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 30 November, 2012 in the case of the petitioner whereby goods lying in the Inland Container Depots at Ballabgarh and at Ludhiana and Delhi were directed to be released, in view of the fact that the amount of Rs. 2 crore is lying with the Customs authorities which shall be adjusted against the liability that may be determined upon adjudication. 5. An affidavit in reply has been filed in these proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, ICD Mulund (Imports). The affidavit explains in detail the nature of the allegations and the modus operandi followed by Ashish Jain, who was controlling three firms, namely, Aakanksha Syntex P. Ltd. (the Petitioner), Ishita Exports a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is alleged that the actual assessable value is Rs. 123.53 crores with a differential duty of Rs. 12.25 crores. 6. The first submission is based on the provisions of Section 110(2). Section 110(2) provides as follows : "(2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized : Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Commissioner of Customs for a period not exceeding six months." Sub-section (1) of Section 110 empowers the proper officer to seize goods which he believe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench held that it is only where no order has been passed for provisional release of the seized goods that Section 110(2) would apply, if no notice is issued under Section 124(a) within the period stipulated. The Division Bench held that any other reading of the section would mean that a person whose goods are seized would seek provisional release, obtain an order for provisional release and on the expiry of a period of six months if notice is not issued under Section 124(a) then contend that the terms for provisional release are no longer binding as the period of six months has expired without the issuance of a notice. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has in Akanksha Synthex (P) Limited v. Union of India, CWP 3060 of 2012, decided on 30 N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rantee of Rs. 36.25 lakhs which is computed in a chart annexed at Exh. N to the petition. In respect of the goods which were the subject matter of the order of provisional release by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Delhi-IV, Faridabad, an order was passed on 30 December, 2011 by which a Bank Guarantee of the value of Rs. 89.14 lakhs was demanded as against a differential duty of Rs. 44.57 lakhs. Hence, Counsel submits that whereas the goods which form the subject matter of the provisional release by the Commissioner at Faridabad were subjected to a bank guarantee condition of approximately 200% of the differential duty, the bank guarantee proposed by the Assistant Commissioner in the impugned order is several times higher. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
