9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve come forward to withdraw consignments, intention to defraud revenue are prima facie indicated. It is further observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has already taken excessive lenient view and has reduced bank guarantee from 25% of the FOB value of the goods to 15% of the FOB value of the goods. In these circumstances, there is no justification to consider any further modification relating to furnishing of Bank Guarantee. In the circumstances when consignment has been allowed to be withdrawn, reduction in bank guarantee was not justified. Since over valuation of attempted export is alleged, sufficient security has to be ensured for imposition of sufficient fine an penalty to discourage this type of attempt. - no force in appellant' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of seized goods has been decided time and again by various higher appellate authorities in the case of import goods wherein it has been held that a Bank Guarantee of 25%/30% of the differential duty is sufficient for provisional release of the goods in many cases. The appellant has relied upon a few of such case law as above in the grounds of appeal. I find that in all these cases bank guarantee was prescribed for differential import duty. In the instant case the goods are meant for export and involve drawback. Import duty cannot be equated with drawback. The two incidents involving import duty and drawback are based on different matrix of circumstance and rules and regulations. Therefore, the ratio of the case laws cited by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... withdrawing of the consignment. He also categorically held that no draw back will be available. On the other hand, Commissioner (Appeals) has put very onerous condition to get the release of the goods by executing a bank guarantee of ₹ 55 lakhs. It has been contended that once the goods has been allowed to be withdrawn, there was no question of asking for furnishing bank guarantee of ₹ 55 lakhs. (b) It is further contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not appreciated that the provisional release order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was not legal and no justification for imposition of bank guarantee equal to 25% of FOB value of goods has been given by the adjudicating authority. 6. Ld. Consultant also referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lete their investigation. Neither have they furnished various documents called from them in the form of details of past clearances, copies of purchase or bills intended for export, copy of rent agreement of premises of M/s.Shri Krishna Woollen Mills Opposite - Village Mehrana, Near Jai Balaji Dharam Kanta, Gohana Road, Panipat, and premises of M/s.Shri Krishna Woollen Mills, A-103A, Nirankari Colony, Fatehgarh, Churian Road, Amritsar, copy of bank statement, nor have given details of persons from whom the goods were purchased which are specifically meant for export including mode of payment, copy of supply order form the importer of the goods, how supply order obtained and details of E-mail with the importer. Ld.DR also produced copy of inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds, the seized goods should be released provisionally and allowed to be exported on execution of an bond for an amount equivalent to the value of seized goods and probable fine and penalty which might be imposed. However, no export benefits shall be allowed in such cases until the matter in finally decided, and the bond to be executed for provisional release and shall contain a clause to this effect. 11. It is observed that the appellant have not appreciated the content of circular as it has clearly been pointed out that instructions are not applicable to the prohibited and contraband goods. As per investigations conducted by the department, it has been brought out that there was huge difference in the declared price of small and big car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced bank guarantee from 25% of the FOB value of the goods to 15% of the FOB value of the goods. In these circumstances, there is no justification to consider any further modification relating to furnishing of Bank Guarantee. In the circumstances when consignment has been allowed to be withdrawn, reduction in bank guarantee was not justified. Since over valuation of attempted export is alleged, sufficient security has to be ensured for imposition of sufficient fine an penalty to discourage this type of attempt. 14. Further, Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is very liberal without appreciating the gravity of alleged violations. 15. Keeping in mind totality of facts, I find no force in appellant's request to further modify of Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
