9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery excessive as against the total differential duty involved ₹ 59 Lakh approx. - the goods were seized on the basis of prima facie nature of the case of undervaluation and detailed investigation is yet to be carried out. Terms and condition of bank guarantee - HELD THAT:- There cannot be a fixed criteria for the amount of security to be given along with bond for provisional release of goods and it varies from facts of each case. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that ends of justice will be met if the appellant execute bond of 100% value of the goods and bank guarantee for 100% of differential duty amount. Appeal allowed. - CUSTOMS Appeal No. 10407 of 2020 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as the Hon ble Supreme Court wherein the bank guarantee for 30% of the duty was fixed. He relied on the following judgments:- (a) Navshakti Industries Pvt. Limited vs. CC, lCD, TKD, New Delhi - 2011 (267) ELT 483 (Del.) (b) Commissioner vs. Navshakti Industries Pvt. Limited - 2011 (269) ELT A146 (SC) (c) Daya Enterprises vs. CC (Export) - 2016 (336) ELT 73 (Del.) (d) Zest Aviation Pvt. Limited vs. UoI - 2013 (289) ELT 243 (Del.) (e) Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai vs. Kanishka Enterprises - 2018(361) ELT 465 (Mad.) (f) Kundan Rice Mills Limited vs. UoI - 2017 (345) ELT 354 (All) (g) Max Enterprises vs. DC, Customs, Chennai - 2019(367) ELT 753 (Mad.) (h) Vishal Collection vs. CC, Nhava Sheva - 2017 (357) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the terms and conditions imposed for provisional release of the goods. He submits that as per Circular No. 35/2017-Cus dated 16.08.2017, the appellant is required to give bank guarantee of an amount which includes the amount of duty, penalty, fine etc. Therefore, as against the duty of ₹ 59 Lakhs (approximately) after considering the amount of fine and penalty, learned Principal Commissioner rightly arrived at amount of ₹ 1.6 Crores for furnishing the bank guarantee by the appellant. Therefore, the condition for provisional release of goods is well within the ambit of law. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- (a) S.S. Offshore Pvt. Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import-I), Mumbai - 2018 (364) E.L.T. 932 (Tri. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is lower than the amount indicated in Para 2.2 of the Circular dated 16.08.2017. He placed reliance on the following judgments :- (a) Mala Petrochemicals Polymers vs. Addl. Director General, DRI - 2017 (3530) ELT 446 (Del.) (b) Addl. Director General vs. Mala Petrochemicals Polymers -2018 (360) ELT A256 (SC) (c) Agya Import Limited vs. CC, New Delhi - 2018 (362) ELT 1037 (Del.) 8. We have heard both sides and perused the record. As regards early hearing application, we find that since the goods are perishable and lying seized, the appellant have made out a fit case for early hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, the early hearing is allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the only issue of terms and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that there cannot be a fixed criteria for the amount of security to be given along with bond for provisional release of goods and it varies from facts of each case. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that ends of justice will be met if the appellant execute bond of 100% value of the goods and bank guarantee for 100% of differential duty amount. Accordingly, we hold so. As regards the submissions made by learned Counsel that the Customs Department may be directed to issue a detention certificate to avoid the payment of charges of CFS, we find that this issue does not arise from the impugned order. 11. As per our above observation the appeal is allowed in the above te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
