9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudication of the show cause notice, which has now been issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to reply the same within 30 days of its receipt. It would be appropriate that the respondents proceed to adjudicate the show cause notice, after the reply is filed by the petitioner within the prescribed period of 30 days granted to it from the date of the receipt of the show cause notice. At this stage it may not be appropriate to consider the merits of the rival contentions which are certainly issues falling under the show cause notice. It would be in the interest of justice that provisional release of the Vessel by the respondents be ordered pending the adjudication of the show cause notice - Petition disposed off. - WR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that respondent no.1 through the Superintendent of Customs (Prevention) issued a seizure memo dated March 19, 2021 against the Vessel. The seizure memo recorded that the petitioner had used forged stamps and signatures of the Customs Officers to manipulate entries in the logbooks, as also customs duty on the vessel and goods was sought to be evaded by the petitioner. It also recorded that the Vessel has discharged 12 barrels of sludge oil and about 3 MTs of High Speed Diesel (hereinafter HSD for short), which were restricted items for imports into India. The seizure memo recorded that there were reasons to believe that the petitioner had attempted to evade customs duty and had improperly discharged HSD amd for suh reasons the Vessel va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Intelligence Unit) enclosing the bank guarantee of ₹ 35 lakhs, original bond of ₹ 7 Crores and the said survey report of the valuers S.V. Gupte, thereby requesting provisional release of the Vessel. The petitioner has stated that the petitioner was verbally informed that Vessel s file was transferred from the Central Intelligence Unit, internally, to the Commissioner of Customs, hence the documents along with guarantee documents came to be returned to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner again re-submitted the bank guarantee of ₹ 35 lakhs, original bond of ₹ 7 Crores and the survey report of S.V. Gupte to the Commissioner of Customs/respondent no.1, on May 10, 2021 thereby again requesting for provisional releas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments before the Customs on arrival of the Vessel stating that the Vessel was on coastal run from Magdala port (Surat). However, it was found that said Vessel was actually a foreign run Vessel arrived from Galle port Sri Lanka and further the Vessel also had a Port Clearance issued at Sri Lanka for next port Mumbai, India. It is stated that during the investigation it was found that the petitioner had anchored the Vessel outside port limit near Alibaug for more than 12 days, before its arrival at Mumbai. It was revealed that during the anchorage at Alibaug, the petitioner has admitted to have surreptitiously removed HSD (restricted item) from the Vessel without permission from any of the authorities. Further, on arrival at Mumbai on March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, redemption fine, interest and penalty as may be decided by the competent adjudicating authority, and no such communication accepting the bank guarantee for ₹ 35 lakhs was issued by respondent no.1. It is contended that the intention of the respondents in issuing the impugned communication was to protect the revenue in considering the provisional release of the seized Vessel under Section 110A of the Act and by imposing conditions as contained in the impugned letter. 7. At the hearing of this petition, on July 29, 2021, we recorded a statement as made on behalf of the respondents that steps were being taken for issuance of a show cause notice before August 6, 2021. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the duty to the extent of ₹ 35 lakhs is being demanded under Section 28(4) of the Act for illegal importation of the Vessel into India and the petitioner being called upon to show cause as to why bank guarantee furnished by it should not be encashed and the amount should not be appropriated against duty liability and eventual fine and penalty. 10. Having considered the above conspectus, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate that the respondents proceed to adjudicate the show cause notice, after the reply is filed by the petitioner within the prescribed period of 30 days granted to it from the date of the receipt of the show cause notice. At this stage it may not be appropriate to consider the merits of the riv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
