9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk guarantee of Rs. 1.60 Crore. The appellant also filed early hearing application. 2. Shri Amit Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the value of imported goods 'Plain White Papers in Rolls' was enhanced without any basis and show cause notice on the issue is yet to be issued. The Principal Commissioner, as against the differential duty amount of Rs. 59,43,370/-, has asked for bank guarantee of Rs. 1.60 Crores, which is very harsh. 3. Shri Amit Jain, learned Counsel, with regard to early hearing application submits that goods are lying at CFS. Since it is a live consignment, early hearing may be granted. He also requested that since a limited issue of condition of bank guarantee is involved, the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs -2018 (360) ELT A256 (SC) (c) Agya Import Limited vs. CC, New Delhi - 2018 (362) ELT 1037 (Del.) (d) ITC Limited vs. CCE, Kolkata-IV - 2019 (368) ELT 216 (SC) (e) Jairath International vs. UoI - 2019 (370) ELT 116 (P&H) (f) State Enterprises vs. CC, New Delhi - 2019 (3) TMI 1341 5. He also submits that CFS M/s. Honeycomb who is the custodian of the goods which was given under Supurdnama dated 28.01.2020, insisting for demurrage and detention charges. However, the goods were seized and given on Supurdnama by DRI to the CFS. CFS has undertaken not to charge any rent or amount for the storage and safe custody of seized goods. He pray for directions for issuance of detention certificate to the DRI so that the rent amount and other c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Virgo Steels -2002 (141) ELT 598 (SC) (i) Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar vs. Re-Rolling mills - 1997 (94) ELT 8 (SC) (j) Commissioner of Customs, C.G.O. vs. Sonam International -2012 (275) ELT 326 (All.) (k) A.G. Incorporation vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi - 2013 (287) E.L.T. 357 (Tri. Del.) 7. Countering the argument of learned Authorised Representative, Shri Amit Jain submits that though, in Board Circular No. 35/2017-Cus, in Para 2.2 guideline for furnishing bank guarantee amount is given however, as per Para 2.3, the competent authority has power to increase or decrease the security deposit. Therefore, there cannot be any fixed criteria for the amount of bank guarantee. He submits that despite of guidelines in P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty involved Rs. 59 Lakh approx. As regards the Authorised Representative's argument that as per Board Circular 35/2017-Cus dated 16.08.2017, the competent authority has correctly worked out Rs. 1.6 Crore for bank guarantee which takes care of differential duty, penalty and find etc. We find that in Para 2.3 of the Circular, the discretion is given to the competent authority to decrease or increase the amount of bank guarantee for the purpose of provisional release of the goods. Therefore, the argument of the learned Authorised Representative in this regard does not hold water. We find that goods were seized on the basis of prima facie nature of the case of undervaluation and detailed investigation is yet to be carried out. 10. As regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
