Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (9) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hibit the said Respondent from requiring the Petitioner to maintain a minimum balance of Rs. 4.89 lakhs in the bank accounts of the Petitioner. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that he is a regular importer of PUcoated fabric. According to the Petitioner, he has been importing this fabric of 1.0 m.m. + - 3% thickness over a period of time and it is stated that over 300 such imports have been made from time to time. 3. When the Petitioner imported the goods under the present bill of entry bearing number 583202 at the rate of US$ 1.55 per meter, the Respondents took action to seize these goods. 4. Earlier, the Respondents had searched the premises of the Petitioner in respect of imports made of PU coated fabric which were cleared .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tory ('CRCL').We have been told by learned counsel for the Respondents that certain procedural formalities were not complied with when the samples were taken and therefore, fresh samples were taken in July, 2007 and the report from the CRCL is still awaited. In the absence of any material to the contrary, we have no option but to believe the Petitioner when it says that the thickness of the imported PU coated fabric is 1.0 m.m. +- 3%. 9. We may note our surprise that even though about five months have gone by, the Respondents have not been able to ascertain the thickness of the imported goods which itself may lead to other complications such as charges for warehousing, etc. But we are not presently concerned with that. 10. The secon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the circular issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, suggests that PU coated fabric of thickness 1.0 m.m. +- 3% must be valued at US$ 1.90 per meter. 14. Under the circumstances, we allow the first prayer of the Petitioner in the application and direct the Respondents to release PU coated fabric imported by the Petitioner under bill of entry number 583202 on a value of US$ 1.90 per meter. Of course, this will be provisional and pending adjudication proceedings. 15. Insofar as the differential amount of duty is concerned, that is, on US$ 5.50 per meter claimed by the Respondents and US$ 1.90 per meter under which clearance is sought by the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that his client will furn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... here is a dispute in respect of the correct value of the goods that does not necessarily classify the goods as smuggled goods. The goods were imported by the Petitioner in accordance with law and were cleared by the Customs authorities in accordance with law. The goods may have been grossly under invoiced but that is a different matter altogether and will have to be decided by the authorities as and when they initiate adjudication proceedings against the Petitioner. 20. Learned counsel for the Respondents also drew our attention to Section125 of the Customs Act and pointed out that goods imported by the Petitioner are not notified goods and therefore, the burden is on the Respondents to prove that the goods imported by the Petitioner ar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ned above, we are of the view that the Petitioner is also entitled to the second prayer made, namely, for the release of Indian currency of Rs. 23.90 lakhs as well as freedom from the requirement to keep a minimum balance amount of R.4.89 lakhs in the bank accounts of the Petitioner. 25. However, so far as to restituting the Respondents in case the adjudication proceedings are terminated against the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the authorized representative of his client will file an undertaking in this Court within a week stating therein that in case the adjudication proceedings are decided against the Petitioner, he will deposit in this Court Rs. 23.90 lakhs as well as Rs. 4.89 lakhs within a week thereaf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates