9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne is ₹ 2,08,358/-. This appears to have been calculated on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of Notification No.46 of 2011-Customs. Therefore, while preserving the right of the department to proceed with the investigation not only with subject consignment, but as well as the prior imports, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be permitted to remove the goods by way of provisionally release pending investigation/issuance of show cause notice and adjudication subject to stringent conditions. This Court is inclined to exercise such discretion in the light of the fact that the duty, which is alleged to have been foregone on the subject import is ₹ 2,08,358/-, as per the counter affidavit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms. Under the said Notification, the basic customs duty is NIL. Based on intelligence, the consignment was detained after 'Out of Charge' order was given on 09.07.2014. The respondent would state that during the course of investigation, the petitioner did not submit the copy of the Asian India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA) Certificate of Origin for any of their consignments and as per the notification, four copies of the certificate have to be furnished of which the Triplicate copy could be retained by the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that for each consignment, they have received only one original AIFTA certificate of origin, which was submitted at the time of examination and the petitioner did not receive the triplicate copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08,358/-. On the above background, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition seeking for permission to effect clearance of the goods, which have been now detained. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after reiterating the factual averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition submitted that the respondents ought to have taken into consideration that the goods imported are not prohibited goods and there cannot be any impediment for the respondents to proceed with the assessment and clearance of goods. Further, it is submitted that the respondents atleast should have cleared the goods on provisional basis in terms of Section 110A of the Act by following the circular issued by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gin and also stated that the petitioner has submitted the same at the time of examination and that the petitioner did not receive the Triplicate (Petitioner's) copy of the AIFTA certificate of origin and also stated that the petitioner was not having even a photocopy of the said AIFTA certificates of origin. The petitioner also stated that the petitioner has received the Original copy of the AIFTA certificate of origin through a broker and not directly from the supplier. Thus, the petitioner had not submitted to the investigation, the petitioner's copy of such AIFTA certificates which are expected to be with them. Further, it is submitted that the investigation is in progress and at this stage, if the goods are to be released, it wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents or as to whether the respondents should be directed to provisionally release the goods pending further action by them. The description of goods in the Bill of Lading, was given as Electro Galvanized Sheets . While the petitioner in the Bill of Entry declared the goods as Defective M.S.C.R., Sheet Cuttings . On samples being drawn and examined by the Testing Agency, it was certified that the consignment was Electro Galvanized Low Carbon CR Steel Sheets. From the above facts, it prima facie appears to be a case of mis-declaration. However, the case of the petitioner is that even going by the certificate issued by the testing agency, dated 03.09.2014, the consignment is Electro Galvanized Low Carbon CR Steel Sheets, which effect means ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 18.08.2014, which necessitated the petitioner to approach this Court. 6. The relevant consideration while exercising power under Section 110-A would be to ensure that whether if the goods, which have been seized are provisionally released, would it any manner hamper the investigation/adjudication. Whether it would affect the interest of the revenue for recovering the duty and penalty which may be imposed on conclusion of the adjudication proceedings. The respondents in the instant case would state that apart from the present consignment, the petitioner has already imported 44 consignments and for all those consignments, he has availed the benefit of notification No.46 of 2011, for which he is not entitled to. However, with regard to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
