Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (9) TMI 450

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is that the proper officer must have reason to believe that such goods are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. Confiscation is provided under section 111. Therefore, contention of the respondents that the vehicle was seized under section 111(d) is not correct. Seizure was made under section 110 perhaps on the belief that the vehicle is liable to confiscation under section 111(d). As a matter of fact, section 110A provides a pragmatic mechanism to facilitate provisional release of seized goods etc. to the owner pending adjudication but at the same time protecting the interest of the revenue. Keeping the above in mind, the provision is required to be understood and applied. This Court modified the order of provisional release by directing provisional release of the Ferrari F 430 car subject to petitioner executing a bond for full value and furnishing bank guarantee of any nationalized bank for ₹ 15 lakhs. Further condition imposed was that petitioner should not create any third party right, title or interest in the said imported car till adjudication proceedings reached finality - When the statute itself provides for provisional release of seized goods, merely o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 33,71,569.50 and the duty of ₹ 72,48,875.00 was paid. It is stated that the vehicle was examined by the customs officer on 15.01.2020 for clearance. On scrutiny of the documents and on physical examination of the vehicle amongst others by chartered engineer, it was found that there are certain modifications carried out in the vehicle wherefrom it appeared to be a second hand model. Petitioner was also unable to respond to certain queries of the customs officer. According to the customs officer, the vehicle appeared to be of the year 1967 make and thus around 50 to 60 years old. Therefore, view was taken that the car was imported by violating the relevant import policy and was thus categorized as a prohibited good. 4.1. Considering the above, the vehicle was seized on 20.03.2020 under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter). Petitioner made a request for provisional release of the vehicle on 20.04.2020 followed by email dated 06.05.2020. In this connection, summons were issued on 08.07.2020 for appearance of the petitioner and production of documents. In response to the summons, petitioner submitted that he had filed appeal before th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . In any case, when petitioner has already filed appeal before the CESTAT, Court may await decision by the CESTAT. 8. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. Also perused the materials on record. 9. As noted above, facts are not in dispute. The only area of dispute is that according to the petitioner, the imported vehicle is a brand new one whereas according to the respondents, it is a second hand model. This would have a bearing on the duty to be levied. However, it is admitted that petitioner has paid the entire duty of ₹ 72,48,875.00 on the declared assessable value of the imported car of ₹ 33,71,569.00. It is also an admitted position that the vehicle is under seizure, seizure being made on 20.03.2020 though under detention since 11.01.2020 and that it has neither been confiscated nor adjudication has commenced. 10. Section 110 of the Act deals with seizure of goods, documents and things. Sub-section (1) says that if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, he may seize such goods. While we are not called upon to adjudicate on the correctness of the decis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d to provisional release under section 110-A. The words goods, documents and things seized are expressions of general import without any qualifications and / or are not accompanied by any qualifying words. Therefore, no restriction or restrictive meaning can be read into the said expressions which is not contemplated by the statute. 13. As a matter of fact, section 110A provides a pragmatic mechanism to facilitate provisional release of seized goods etc. to the owner pending adjudication but at the same time protecting the interest of the revenue. Keeping the above in mind, the provision is required to be understood and applied. 14. Having discussed the above, let us examine the decision of this Court in Ashish Puravankara (supra). Relevant portion of the said order reads as under: 12. Having heard both the sides at length, the adjudication proceedings are still pending as such the petition is premature so far as challenge to the order of seizure is concerned. So far as the provisional order dated 23-2-2010 is concerned, the Respondents are claiming payment of differential duty of ₹ 15,02,239/- plus interest with execution of the bond for the full value together .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... were still pending. In that case, order for provisional release was passed with conditions which were found to be somewhat harsh. In such circumstances, this Court modified the order of provisional release by directing provisional release of the Ferrari F 430 car subject to petitioner executing a bond for full value and furnishing bank guarantee of any nationalized bank for ₹ 15 lakhs. Further condition imposed was that petitioner should not create any third party right, title or interest in the said imported car till adjudication proceedings reached finality. 15. Upon thorough consideration of the matter and having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the view that the decision of this Court in Ashish Puravankara (supra) is eminently applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. When the statute itself provides for provisional release of seized goods, merely on the ground that the good in question is a prohibited one or that the aggrieved person has filed appeal before the CESTAT cannot be the reason not to exercise the statutory discretion conferred by section 110-A. That being the position, we issue the following directions:- (1) Petition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates