9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Appellant since incurring heavy warehousing charges for the last one year, are willing to deposit the differential duty and execute bank guarantee / security deposit of Rs.3,00,000/-; also they have no objection to execute B-1 Bond for the estimated value of Rs.39,64,262/- as conditions for provisional release of the goods. In our considered opinion, keeping in view the principles of law settled in this regard, furnishing B-1 Bond for the estimated value of Rs.39,64,262/-, bank guarantee/cash deposit of Rs.3.00 lakhs, and deposit of the differential duty at the time of provisional release of goods would sufficiently safeguard the interest of revenue and meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 attracting basic customs duty @ 20% instead of CTH 7007 attracting duty @ 10% declared by the appellant in the said two Bills of Entry. Consequently, the goods covered under the aforesaid Bills of Entry were seized on 04/02/2022 and 09/02/2022 alleging misclassification with intention to evade payment of duty since liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant thereafter represented on 12/02/2022 responding to the said allegation in the seizure memo and requested for provisional release of the goods seized by the Department. Replying to the said letter and subsequent reminder, the Department without considering the submissions/explanations advanced by the applicant, allowed provisional release of the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld have been re-assessed and necessary demand notice ought to have been issued with an opportunity to the appellant to explain their stand vis- -vis the proposal of re-classification by the Department. He has vehemently argued that directing seizure of the goods on mere change of opinion without suppression of facts or mis-declaration on their part is bad in law and to be set aside. He further submits that their request for provisional release of the imported goods also has not been considered on its merit inasmuch as harsh conditions were imposed by unduly enhancing the value of the goods from the total transaction value of Rs.15,15,920/- to Rs.39,64,262/- when there was no allegation of misdeclaration or suppression of value in the seizu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xed the amount of value of the bond and bank guarantee following the Circular No.35/2017-Customs dt. 16/08/2017, hence the argument of the learned advocate that it is arbitrary is incorrect and cannot be sustained. Learned AR has relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl. Director General Vs. Mala Petrochemicals Polymers [2018(360) ELT A256 (SC)]. 5. In his rejoinder, the learned advocate for the appellant submitted that in the seizure memos dt. 04/02/2022 and 09/02/2022, nowhere it is mentioned that the reason to believe in effecting seizure of the goods relates to undervaluation or suppression of correct value. The only ground mentioned while making seizure of the goods refers to mis-declaration of chapter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded to place the imported goods under seizure alleging mis-classification. It is pertinent to note that no mis-declaration of the description of the goods is alleged nor any other material disclosed in the seizure memo revealing intention to mis-declare the classification of the goods on the part of the appellant. On the other hand, appellant placed on record prevailing practice of classification of similar goods in different Customs House/Commissionerate which is under the same Chapter Heading 70072190 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 7. On scrutiny of the seizure memo, we do not find mention of suppression or mis-declaration of the value of the goods. Nor the issue of suppression of the value has been deliberated in the impugned Order by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of Rs.39,64,262/-, bank guarantee/cash deposit of Rs.3.00 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs only), and deposit of the differential duty at the time of provisional release of goods would sufficiently safeguard the interest of revenue and meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent that on execution of B-1 Bond for the estimated value of Rs. Rs.39,64,262/-, furnishing of bank guarantee/cash deposit for Rs.3.00 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs only) and on deposit of differential duty by the Appellant, the adjudicating authority shall release the goods provisionally forthwith pending adjudication of the case. 8. Appeal disposed of as above. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
