9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "CESTAT"), South Zonal Bench, Chennai. 3. In the memorandum of grounds in the statutory appeal, the following substantial question of laws are raised:- "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, CESTAT is correct in law to prescribe the amount fixed for filing appeal under 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 as the quantum of Bank Guarantee under Section 110A ibid for release of seized goods? (ii) Whether the CESTAT is correct in amending the quantum of the Bank Guarantee ordered to be furnished by the Competent Authority under Section 110A ibid read with CBEC Circular 35/2017-Cus. dated 16.08.2017? (iii) Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Duty of Rs. 29,57,85,172/- and the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, allowed the provisional release of the goods vide letter dated 29.11.2017 with a condition to furnish a Bond equal to the value of the goods and submitting a Bank Guarantee or Cash Security equal to 60% of the value of the goods towards likely adjudication levies including duty, fine and penalty. The respondent/importer aggrieved by the said decision/proceedings dated 29.11.2017, filed the appeal before the CESTAT, Chennai. The CESTAT, Chennai, after taking note of the fact, found that the yellow peas enjoyed benefit of full exemption from duty, before the issuance of notification No. 84/2017-Customs dated 08.11.2017 and since Bills of Entry have been filed on priority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uidelines for provisional release of seized imported goods pending adjudication under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 and also drawn the attention of this Court to the letter/proceedings of the Commissioner of Customs, dated 29.11.2017, which was a subject matter of the challenge before the CESTAT, Chennai, and would submit that it is only a letter and we cannot termed as an order/decision and it is purely an executive in nature and as such, the appeal before CESTAT, per se, is not maintainable. 10. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that admittedly, the notification came into being on 08.11.2017 and whereas, the Bills of Entry were also came to be granted at 12.50 Hrs. on 08.11.2017, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otal assessable value of Rs. 77,44,67,801/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Crore Forty Four Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand and Eight Hundred and one only), which were already seized under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the seized goods are already released provisionally to the importer under Section 110A of the Customs Act,1962, I give an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv). I confirm the differential duty of Rs. 39,88,50,918/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Crore Eighty Eight Lakh Fifty Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighteen only), arrived by applying the rate of duty in terms of Notification 84/2017-Customs dated 08.11.2017 on the goods imported vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perating for early disposal of the appeal. He would further add that, in the light of the said developments, nothing remaining for further adjudication in this statutory appeal. 12. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it. 13. It is an undisputed fact that, prior to the notification No.84/2017-Customs dated 08.11.2017, the import of yellow peas was not liable for payment of duty. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/importer, the notification No.84/2017-Customs dated 08.11.2017, came to be published at 22.15 Hrs., whereas, the formalities regarding assessment of Bills of Entry have completed much earlier at 12.50 Hrs., on 08.11.2017. 14. The Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to pay the duty, had exercised the discretion. In the considered opinion of this Court, the discretion came to be exercised by the CESTAT in the facts and circumstances of the said case and that apart, the Commissioner of Customs has also disposed of the matter vide order No.12/2018 dated 15.10.2018 and nothing remains for further adjudication in this matter for the reason that the present appeal technically has become infructuous. 16. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the substantial questions of law 2 and 3, is left open to be decided in an appropriate proceedings and therefore, it need not be answered and so far as the substantial question of law No.1 is concerned, as already observed, the disposal by the CESTAT in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
