9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lease of the imported consignments in favor of the Petitioner requires any interference by this Court. The Court is not persuaded to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the conditions imposed in the impugned order are harsh or unreasonable or arbitrary so as to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W.P.(C) 5307/2017 - - - Dated:- 7-7-2017 - S. MURALIDHAR PRATHIBA M. SINGH JJ. Petitioner Through: Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, Ms. Anjali Jha Manish, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra and Mr. Sagar Rohatgi, Advs. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Abhish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amination. A reference is made to a recent circular issued on 8th February, 2017 by the Central Board of Excise Customs about timely action to be taken by the Department on goods that have arrived at the port but are held-up without any separate seizure orders being passed. 3. Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing Counsel for the Department states that of the ten B/Es, the CHA has not still furnished the originals of two B/Es (9258840 and 9259533 dated 11th April, 2017). 4. It is stated by Ms. Anjali Manish, learned counsel for the Petitioner, without prejudice to her contention that the documents in original have already been furnished, that that in respect of these B/Es the CHA will present all the original documents today i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details of the B/Es, upon mentioning a further order was passed on 31st May 2017, which reads as under: 1. Upon being mentioned, the matter has been taken up for hearing. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, paras 5 and 7 of the order dated 30th May, 2017 shall now read as under:- 5. As far as B/E No. 9230900 dated 8th April 2017 is concerned, Mr. Narula states that an order on the request for the provisional release of the goods will be passed positively on or before 2nd June 2017. 7. That leaves three B/Es, i.e., 9230914, 9230883 and 9371704. Mr. Narula assures the Court that the examination of these containers having been already completed in the presence of the CHA, necessary orders in respect the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a small portion of the entire consignment) or the restricted or prohibited goods, the condition that it should deposit 100% of the differential duty and also furnish a bank guarantee for 15% thereof was not warranted. She urged that Court should modify the impugned order of provisional release of goods and replace it with the conditions as contained in some of the earlier orders of this Court including Spirotech Heat Exchangers Private Limited v. Union of India 2016 (341) ELT 110 (Del) and J.B. Overseas v. Union of India 2016 (340) ELT 507 (Del). Ms. Manish further pointed out that the reference to the National Import Data Base ( NIDB ) was inappropriate inasmuch none of the goods imported by the Petitioner were mentioned therein. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he distinction between the goods being released provisionally in terms of Section 110 A of the Act and provisional assessment of the goods under Section 18 of the Act read with the Regulations thereof was perhaps not acknowledged in many of the orders earlier passed by the Court. More importantly, none of these cases, as already noticed, actually dealt with the provisional release of goods that had been imported by mis-declaring them. 22. Ultimately, each case turns on its peculiar facts. There can never be a blanket rule that in all cases of misdeclaration 100% of the duty must be asked to be deposited or that if the importer is asked to do so then he cannot be asked to furnish a BG. For instance, in Malabar Diamond Gallery P Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the conditions imposed by the Respondent in the impugned order of provisional release of the imported consignments in favour of the Petitioner requires any interference by this Court. 12. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents placed on record, the Court is not persuaded to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the conditions imposed in the impugned order are harsh or unreasonable or arbitrary so as to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. While the views expressed by this Court at this stage are prima facie it cannot be overlooked that the case put forth by the Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
