9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bond for the remaining amount to the satisfaction of the respondents. The petitioner shall execute an indemnity bond stating that in the event of missing partner raising any claim over the goods or concerning the use of IEC code issued in favour of M/s.Green Line, the petitioner alone would be fully responsible for the same and no liability can be fastened on the respondent Department and the indemnity bond should be furnished in the form approved by the respondents – goods released - The respondent Department directed to proceed with the adjudication and while issuing show cause notice, notices should be issued to the Firm as well as to both partners and all the parties should co-operate with the adjudication proceedings – petition dispos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn manufacturers and the bill of entry has been filed grossly undervaluing the goods. It is stated that M/s.Green Line had earlier cleared three imports through the Customs Brokers M/s.The General Shipping Forwarding and the present bill of entry was filed by M/s.Green Line directly. 4. The stand of the Department is that as per IEC profile of M/s.Green Line issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai, it is a proprietorship concern and Mr.S.Ariya residing in Govindappa Naicken Street, Sowkarpet, Chennai has been shown as a proprietor. The office of the proprietorship concern is stated to be at No.222/93, Rangarajapuram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai. Since the bill of entry was presented by M/s.Green Line represen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r.Mohamed Kalith had appeared in response to a summon and he has given statement and Mr.Kalith would state that he is a partner along with Mr.S.Ariya; but however, the whereabouts of Ariya are not known; but his relatives are in Chennai and he has been informed that Ariya is expected to be back in Chennai in 10-15 days. 6. Admittedly, the goods are not the prohibited items and the stand of the Department opposing the prayer made by the petitioner for provisional release is primarily on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground of undervaluation and mis-description and secondly, on the controversy with regard to the IEC code. So far as the valuation is concerned, in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have provisionally worke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 14.08.2012 (The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin V. Empire Exports); and (iii) W.A.No.758 of 2014, dated 20.06.2014 (The Chief Commissioner of Customs and others V. M/s.Sri Laxmi Vijay Saw Mill, Bangalore and another) and these orders were followed by me in W.P.No.21194 of 2014 dated 08.10.2014 by which the petitioner was permitted to clear the goods on payment of the entire duty as assessed by them; pay a portion of the differential duty on the admitted value fixed by the Department; and execute a bond for the remaining amount. As against the said order dated 08.10.2014, no appeal has been preferred and the goods have been released. Thus, the Courts under specific circumstances have exercised power and issued directions for provisiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
