9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner to comply with the conditions stipulated in the impugned communication. When the petitioner himself has come forward to protect the interest of the revenue by paying differential duty in full, this Court is of the view that further interest of the revenue can be protected if the petitioner furnishes a bond for a sum of ₹ 40,00,000/- and bank guarantee for ₹ 5,00,000/- instead of furnishing a bond for ₹ 16,62,974/- and bank guarantee for ₹ 20,00,000/- as sought for in the impugned order. Petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition (MD) No. 383 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2017 - K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Vinoth Bharathi For the Respondents : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 358/- towards full differential duty for the value of goods alleged to have been mis-declared by the petitioner under seizure mahazar dated 21.10.2016. Even thereafter, the goods were not released. Therefore, the petitioner made another representation on 08.12.2016 for release of the goods. Now, the impugned order is passed calling upon the petitioner to execute a bond for ₹ 16,62,974/- being total value of cargo imported and to furnish a bank guarantee for ₹ 20,00,000/- with self-renewal clause, if the goods are to be released provisionally. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is contended as follows:- The cargo was mis-declared and mis-classified and therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levied under Section 114AA of the Customs Act would be upto 5 times of the value of the goods involved and therefore, the interest of the revenue should be safeguarded for the release of the goods provisionally. The learned Standing Counsel, however, admitted that the petitioner apart from paying admitted duty of ₹ 5,63,046/- has also paid the differential duty of ₹ 23,09,358/-. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The point for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get the goods released provisionally under Section 110 A of the Customs Act by only after complying with the conditions stipulated in the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the subject matter goods is not a prohibited ite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue, the petitioner shall furnish a bond for a sum of ₹ 40,00,000/- and bank guarantee for ₹ 5,00,000/- instead of furnishing a bond for ₹ 16,62,974/- and bank guarantee for ₹ 20,00,000/- as sought for in the impugned order. If such condition is imposed on the petitioner for provisional release, I am of the view that the interest of the revenue will not be defeated in any manner and on the other hand, the same will be safeguarded. In fact, the Division Bench decision relied upon by the petitioner has also upheld the order of the learned Single Judge ordering provisional release based on the payment of 50% of the differential duty as assessed by the department. In this case, the petitioner has paid the entire different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
