9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no malafide intention on the part of the appellant in clearing the consignments without payment of duty, Under the circumstances, the terms stated by the Ld. Commissioner for provisional release of the impugned goods, which was seized is unfair. The customs authorities are directed to finalize this case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months - appeal disposed off. - C/40440/2018 - Final Order No. 40673/2018 - Dated:- 16-3-2018 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate, For the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 21,11.2017 for unconditional release of the cargo. The representation was decided by the Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 29.11.2017 in which provisional release of the goods permitted under Section 110 A of the Customs Act, 1962 with the following conditions:- i) Furnish a bond equal to the value of the goods ii) Submitting Bank Guarantee or cash security equal to 60% of the value of the goods towards likely adjudication levies including duty, fine and penalty. The present appeal has been filed against the order of the Commissioner 2. The Ld. Advocate Shri N. Viswanathan submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner is extremely stringent and onerous especially in view of the fact that the goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 12.50 hrs. as seen from Annex-I. Since the vessel granted entry inwards on 08.11.2017 and Since on the same date the Notification No. 84/2017 was issued, the AR Submitted that the goods imported by the appellant will be liable to payment of duty and since the same has not been paid, the seizure of goods by the DRI was justified. Finally, he submitted that the permission for provisional release ordered by the Commissioner was fair and just. 4. In the rejoinder, the Ld. Advocate referred to the document dated 06.11.2017 of the Port of Tuticorin in which the Supdt. of Customs has admitted and permitted the vessel MV Riva Wind to Entry Inwards and to unload the cargo. Accordingly, he submitted that the date of Entry Inwards Should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we do not find any malafide intention on the part of the appellant in clearing the consignments without payment of duty, Under the circumstances, we find that the terms stated by the Ld. Commissioner for provisional release of the impugned goods, which was seized is unfair. If the entire duty was to be demanded from the appellants under Section 28, the same would be of the order of ₹ 30 Crores as informed by the Ld. Advocate for the appellants. If an appeal against the same were to be filed before the Tribunal, there will be a requirement of making pre-deposit to the extent of 7.5% of ₹ 30 Crores under Section 129 E of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of the above, by taking a guidance from the provisions of mandatory pre-deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
