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

..... 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 by the Customs authorities. During the search, the Respondents seized cash worth Rs. 23.90lakhs and also issued orders to the banks of the Petitioner to ensure that the Petitioner maintains a minimum balance of Rs.4.89 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 second controversy that has arisen in this regard is whether the Respondents have correctly determined the value of the imported goods at the rate of US$ 5.50 per meter. 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that apart from a larg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pplication 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 furnish a bond as per Form B11 to the satisfaction of the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Customs along with a bank guarantee of 20% of the differential duty. Upon furnishing of the bond and acceptance of the bank guarantee, the Assistant Commissioner sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ods 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 are smuggled goods. It appears to us that at best the goods imported by the Respondents can be said to be goods which are grossly under invoiced and sold in the market. Even if that position is accepted, it would not entitle the Respondents to seize the Indian currency r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er. 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 thereafter. 26. It has been made clear to learned counsel for the Petitioner that in the event the undertaking is violated, the authorised representative of the Petitioner will be liable for proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. 27. The application is disposed of as above. 28. W. .....

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