9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at case, a lenient view can be taken. Needless to say that the appellant shall clear the goods on payment of duty as assessed by the Customs - In these circumstances, the appellant deserve for some leniency as regards terms of provisional release of the seized goods. Accordingly, the goods may be provisionally released on furnishing bond of total value with bank guarantee of the amount of 50% of the total duty. Appeal allowed in part. - CUSTOMS Appeal No. 10288 of 2020 - A/11130/2020 - Dated:- 16-7-2020 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Hardik Modh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.K. Shukla, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal and early hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity would have denied benefit of exemption notification in respect of live consignments and allowed to clear the goods with payment of duty. He submits that there is no mis-declaration in description and value of the goods, therefore, imposing harsh condition of demanding bank guarantee equal to duty amount is excessive and unreasonable. He submits that the case is at investigation stage and nothing has been proved against the appellant therefore, Respondent ought not to have put harsh conditions on the appellant for provisional release of the seized goods. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- (a) Spirotech Heat Exchangers Private Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (341) ELT 110 (Del) Para 6. (b) G.S. Sales Corporation vs. CC, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 (369) ELT 1409 (Tn-Del) - Jai Shiv Trading Company vs. CC, New Delhi (k) 2016 (331) ELT 227 (Mad) - ZakirAli Khan vs. CC (Airport), NCH, ACC, Meenambakkam (l) 2020 (371) ELT 774 (Tri-Kol) - CC (Port), Kolkata vs Rudra Vyaparchem Pvt. Limited 4. We have heard both sides and perused the record. In the overall facts of the case, we find that there is prima-facie case of malafide on the part of the appellant to claim exemption fraudulently. However, this is not our conclusion on the merits of the case as the detailed investigation is pending. We also find that the appellant requested for provisional release for re-export of the goods. In that case, a lenient view can be taken. Needless to say that the appellant shall clear the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
