Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 223 - MADRAS HIGH COURTProvisional release of seized goods - Misdeclaration of export goods - finished leather - The department has contended that respondents have misdeclared the description and attempted to export the subject goods, by evading export duty at 60% as per Sl.No.26, of the Export Tariff by availing undue drawback of 6% and also by availing MEIS incentive of 2% on FOB value - seizure of goods u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 with effect from the date of examination i.e. 14.10.2016, vide Seizure Memo dated 16.11.2016 - Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - CBEC Circular No.01/2011 dated 04.01.2011. Held that: - an amount equivalent to the value of goods stipulated in Condition No.6(ii), with due respect, we are unable to subscribe to the views of the learned Single Judge that monetary value mentioned in the subsequent communication dated 10.01.2017 is in a sense diluted the very essence of the order dated 22.12.2016. Even taking it for granted, that in the earlier round of writ petitions, respondents therein have not articulated that the exporters have to offer security towards fine and penalty, in the form of a Bank Guarantee, that does not amount to a waiver of exercise of the powers conferred on the department by virtue of Clause No.4(a) of the Board's circular dated 04.01.2011. At the risk of repetition, when condition Nos.6(ii) & 6(iii) remain unaltered, as per the earlier orders made in W.P.Nos.43062 to 43070 of 2016 dated 22.12.2016, it cannot be contended that the department has erred in directing the exporters to offer Bank Guarantee as an appropriate security, in order to cover redemption, fine and penalty. In our view, the department cannot be compelled to follow an earlier interim order, which has merged with a simple closure of writ petitioner, without there being any adjudication on the merits. In State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 (10) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon'ble Apex Court held that interim orders are passed in aid of the main relief. The common orders passed in W.P.Nos.7429 and 7430 of 2017 dated 18.07.2017, requires interference - impugned orders set aside - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|