Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 139 - AT - CustomsSeeking provisional release of seized imported goods - misdeclaration of origin of goods - the said goods appear to be of Iran origin and not Zambia - validity of demand from Appellants to furnish a bank guarantee to the extent of 15% of value of seized imported goods - Power of Department to review an order passed under section 110A of Customs Act - HELD THAT:- The overall value of goods in the present case is over 100 crores. The fact that the earlier order dated 04.02.2022 issued by the deputy commissioner of Customs, Tumb was withdrawn by the office of Respondent shows that the issue of provisional release was being done under the approval of the Respondent. Under the Customs Act, there is no provision granting power to the department to review an order passed under Section 110A and accordingly the impugned order is bad in law - In the present case, once the provisional release order was passed, the Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, Respondent herein had no jurisdiction under the Customs Act to review the earlier order dated 4th February 2022 granting provisional release to the goods imported vide the Bills of Entry impugned in the present case. The correct approach would have been for the Respondent to challenge the correctness of the said provisional release order before this tribunal. The condition of furnishing the bank guarantee to the extent of 15% of the value of goods or 15% of the duty value itself requires to be tested in terms of the law delivered on the issue in the case of AMIT ENTERPRISES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2011 (5) TMI 375 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT], wherein the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana was pleased to modify the condition of furnishing of bank guarantee of 25% of the market value of the seized goods on the ground that the petitioner therein had paid duty as per the valuation of the department. Tribunal in the case of M/S SRK MANUFACTURING VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, LUHIANA (VICE-VERSA) [2022 (1) TMI 220 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] had deleted the condition of furnishing the bank guarantee equivalent to the 30% of the value of goods on the ground that the appellant therein had paid duty on the declared value and had accepted to pay the entire differential duty as well. The present case stands at a better footing as the Appellant is agreeable to pay entire duty to secure provisional release of goods. As evident from the Bills of entry, the appellant was always willing to deposit the entire duty of BCD + IGST which is over 25 crores and therefore, the condition to direct the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee of 15% of the value of the goods which is over 100 crores is excessive and arbitrary more importantly when the appellant is willing to deposit the duty payable on the seized goods. There is no dispute on the valuation or classification of the goods as is clear from the impugned provisional release order - the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as well and the condition to direct the Appellant to furnish bank guarantee of 15% of the value of goods is arbitrary, excessive and bad in law. The conditions imposed in the impugned provision release order is not justified and correct. However keeping in mind the interest of justice and safeguard of revenue’s interest also, it is held that the seized goods shall be released provisionally on payment of custom duty on the conditions that the appellant shall execute a bond of full value of the seized imported goods and shall furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 1 Crore. Appeal allowed.
|