Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2013 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 784 - HC - CustomsProvisional Release of Goods - Assessees were engaged in importing and trading of goods - In their day-to-day conduct of business, they import certain articles which were used as raw material for finished goods in which they trade or such articles were traded as such by them -Held that:- Goods were seized on 2.5.2013. Order of provisional release was communicated to the petitioner on 3.5.2013 - Because of the onerous conditions imposed by the authorities, relief of provisional release could not be availed by the petitioner - Exercise of powers in such autocratic and despotic manner by the authorities was deprecated - While accepting the writ petition partly, the order of provisional release was set aside retaining it to the extent of furnishing of bond equivalent to the value of the seized goods and deposit of differential duty - Availing of facility of provisional release, by no means, would be taken as acquiescence on the part of the petitioner to the order of seizure of goods which the petitioner would be within its right to challenge in appropriate proceedings. In a case where bank guarantee of 25% of value of goods under challenge was demanded, such condition was held to be not proper, particularly when the seized goods were cleared by the Customs and duty as demanded was paid - Reference may be made to Nav Shakti Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD, New Delhi [2011 (4) TMI 530 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] - Modifying the order of High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had issued direction for clearance of the goods by the customs authorities on furnishing of a bank guarantee of 30% of the differential duty. In Zest Aviliation Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2013 (6) TMI 9 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] bank guarantee of 30% of differential duty with undertaking of self-renewal till final disposal of the case was held to be reasonable and condition of bank guarantee was termed as harsh and burdensome. Claim of the custom authorities was that the petitioner had indulged in ingenuine transactions, and thus, should not be allowed any relief particularly when statutory remedy was available to it and making short-circuiting, the petitioner had invoked the forum of judicial review under the writ jurisdiction - No doubt, the Court does not act as a court of appeal against the decision of customs authorities but when no remedy was available to the petitioner against an order imposing highly onerous conditions passed by the authorities and circumstances were peculiar, this Court will not hesitate to interfere by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to come to the rescue of the petitioner who has been left remediless under the statute. When duty levied by the authorities at the time of initial clearance of the goods has been paid, then furnishing of bank guarantee/cash deposit/fix deposit, even to the extent of 25% of the full value of seized goods is certainly highly onerous condition which makes the relief of provisional release to be nugatory for them.
|