Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2016 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 485 - HC - CustomsRequest for Release of consignment of gold jewellery imported by it from Indonesia without being asked to furnish a BG for 100% of the differential duty. - Preferential rate of duty on import of gold jewellery by the members of the said Association from Indonesia - Earlier the Court has quashed a Circular dated 6th October 2015 [2016 (4) TMI 1032 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Held that:- The impugned order dated 8th June 2016 which requires that in addition to the bond and deposit of 20% of the provisional duty, the Petitioner should either deposit or furnish a BG for 50% of the provisional duty, must itself set out the reasons for such a decision. In other words, the requirement of the law is not satisfied if the reasons are not contained in the order communicated to the Petitioner but in the file notings which are not communicated. The inescapable conclusion is that the impugned order dated 8th June 2016 to the extent of requiring the Petitioner to furnish a BG for 50% of the provisional duty in terms of Regulation 4 of the CPDA Regulations is without reasons and therefore unsustainable in law. Although the Petitioner may be justified in insisting on unconditional release of the goods in question, considering that the Respondents intend filing an appeal against the said judgment and the Petitioner has by way of a demurer agreed to furnish a bond for 100% of the differential duty and deposit 20% of the provisional duty for the provisional release of the goods, the Court considers it appropriate to modify the impugned order dated 8th June 2016 only to the extent of deleting the condition that the Petitioner should additionally deposit or furnish a BG for 50% of the provisional duty. - Decided partly in favor of petitioner.
|