9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri. Hardik Modh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.N. Gohil, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal was filed against Order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Mundra communicated by the Deputy Commissioner (Import Gr.II), Customs House, Mundra whereby, the appellant s imported seized goods has been provisionally released subject to the execution of bond for full value with Bank Guarantee of ₹ 1,38,12,513. The appellant challenged the said order on the ground that the condition of bank guarantee is exorbitant therefore, they seek reduction in the amount of the bank guarantee. 2. Shri Hardik Modh, Learned Counsel ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed not to discuss much on the issue. The order dated 16.07.2020 is reproduced below:- The present appeal and early hearing application is filed against the impugned order of Principal Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Mundra, Kutch, communicated by the Deputy Commissioner (Import GroupII) Custom House, Mundra dated 17.02.2020 whereby the provisional release order was passed in respect of goods valued ₹ 1,95,62,941/- with the condition of execution of bond for full value with bank guarantee of ₹ 60,60,600/-. 2. Shri Hardik Modh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that this case is of live consignment therefore, early hearing application and appeal may be disposed of together. He submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) Spirotech Heat Exchangers Private Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (341) ELT 110 (Del) Para 6. (b) G.S. Sales Corporation vs. CC, Mundra - 2016 (343) ELT 641 (Tri) (c) ABS International vs. CC - Order NO. A/11823 of 2018 dated 30.08.2018 d) Pallahan Industries vs. Union of India - 2015 (325) ELT 18 (P H) He also submits that the appellant have been incurring detention and demurrage charges on account of live consignment. No prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if the seized goods are allowed for re-export. 3. Shri S.K. Shukla, learned Superintendent (Authorised Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that there is clear attempt of evasion of duty by claiming scheme of advance authorisat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt 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 on payment of duty as assessed by the Customs. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant deserve for some leniency as regards terms of provisional release of the seized goods. Accordingly, we hold that goods may be provisionally released on furnishing bond of total value with bank guarantee of the amount of 50% of the total duty. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. Early hearing application also disposed of. 4.1 From the above order it can be seen that this tribunal considering all the common facts came to the conclusion that for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
