9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Customs, Bombay [ 1993 (9) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT ], Himgiri Buildcon Industries Limited and Agsons Agencies (I) Private Limited [ 2021 (2) TMI 391 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] and HLG Trading [ 2018 (8) TMI 1608 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] in support of his contention that orders of the higher authority is binding on lower authorities unless same is stayed. Since, there is no stay as of today, the Order-in-original is binding on the Authorities and therefore the Petitioner is justified in seeking provisional release of the goods under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962. It is important to note that the Respondents have not doubted the credentials of the Petitioner who is a regular importer of such goods. The Petitioner has approached this Court only after receiving no response from the Respondents inspite of several request for provisional release of the goods. The petition is allowed by directing the goods, subject matter of Bill of Entry No. 669283 dated 17th December, 2021, be provisionally released on the Petitioner paying the duty on the value as declared i.e. Rs. 1,01,23,813/- and furnishing a bond containing an undertaking that the Petitioner shall pay the duty fine an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents to release the goods since the same was pending clearance for more than one year leading to blockage of working capital and to avoid further loss. However, Respondents did not release the goods and therefore, the Petitioner lodged present petition on 25th May, 2023 praying for the following substantive relief : (a) This Hon ble Court by its appropriate Writ, Order and Direction be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ to direct the Respondent to release the goods on execution of a simple bond pending disposal of the appeal filed by the Respondent before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 6. The counsel for the Petitioner has taken us through the memo of petition as also the correspondence and documents as annexed to the Petition. It is his submission that inspite of there being no stay on the Order-in- Original dated 16th December, 2022, the Respondents are not releasing the goods and the same is contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court and High Court in the case of Union of India V/s. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.), Collector of Customs, Bombay V/s. Krishna Sales (P) Ltd. 1993 (9) TMI 124 Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Agsons Agencies (I) Private Limited (supra) and HLG Trading (supra) in support of his contention that orders of the higher authority is binding on lower authorities unless same is stayed. Since, there is no stay as of today, the Order-in-original is binding on the Authorities and therefore the Petitioner is justified in seeking provisional release of the goods under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962. 10. It is important to note that the Respondents have not doubted the credentials of the Petitioner who is a regular importer of such goods. The Petitioner has approached this Court only after receiving no response from the Respondents inspite of several request for provisional release of the goods. 11. The Respondents have also issued a Circular dated 16th August, 2017 which list down the guidelines for provisional release of the seized imported goods under Section 110-A of the Customs Act. The said circular list down the guidelines for exercise of powers to permit provisional release of the goods. This Court in the case of RKZB International V/s. The Union of India and Anr. 2023 (9) TMI 366 Bombay High Court has decided a similar issue of provisional releas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized imported goods pending adjudication under Section 110A of the Customs Act, the same is issued to the Principle Chief Commissioners. Thus, the circular would be required to be taken into consideration by the concerned officers, who are exercising powers to permit provisional release of the goods. Certainly, there cannot be an argument that the Circular would, in any manner, bind this Court to pass orders, only in terms of the circular. We are, thus, not impressed with Mr. Adik's contention that any orders passed on the petition ought to be as per the provisions of the circular. In fact, such contention also cannot be fully supported from the contents of the circular as the circular inter alia provides for different avenues recognizing the discretion of the Revenue Authorities, as to in which of the cases bank guarantee or security deposit can be insisted upon. The circular in no manner takes away such discretion available with the Customs Authorities under Section 110A of the Act to apply appropriate parameters depending on the facts and circumstances before such authority. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, we are quite surprised with the approach of Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
