2024 (11) TMI 1441 - HC - Customs

Rejection of petitioner s appeal for want of the necessary pre-deposit - transactional value of the goods imported against the aforesaid Bill of Entries was enhanced significantly - HELD THAT - Admittedly the petitioner did not make the necessary pre-deposit. The petitioner wants to make good of the said payment by requesting that the bank guarantee of Rs.15, 00, 000/- which was furnished at the time of the provisional release of the goods be encashed. The petitioner also contended that since the goods have not been cleared and are lying with the Customs Authorities the value of the goods be also reckoned towards the pre-deposit. The said contention was not accepted by the Customs Authorities and rightly so. The bank guarantee was furnished by the petitioner for a specific purpose of release of the goods and cannot be used at the instance of the petitioner for a completely different purpose. However even if it is accepted that the bank guarantee could be invoked for making the pre-deposit admittedly the amount available would be insufficient to satisfy the requirement of the pre-deposit. Thus undisputedly the petitioner has defaulted in making the necessary deposit for maintaining the appeal. Thus the decision not to entertain the petitioner s appeal cannot be faulted. Conclusion - The bank guarantee meant for the provisional release of goods could not be repurposed for the pre-deposit and even if it could the amount was insufficient. Petition dismissed.

Summary

The Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to set aside the Final Defect Miscellaneous Order No.25/2023 dated 14.02.2023 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus to consider a bank guarantee and the value of imported goods towards the mandatory pre-deposit required for maintaining an appeal.The petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of their appeal by CESTAT due to non-payment of the necessary pre-deposit. The appeal was against an order-in-original dated 31.01.2020, which significantly enhanced the transactional value of imported goods, resulting in a computed duty of Rs.10,28,57,637/- and an imposed penalty. The petitioner was required to make a pre-deposit of 7.5% of this value, amounting to Rs.59,17,834/-, which they failed to do.The petitioner proposed using a Rs.15,00,000/- bank guarantee and the value of goods in Customs' custody to satisfy the pre-deposit requirement. However, the court held that the bank guarantee, meant for the provisional release of goods, could not be repurposed for the pre-deposit, and even if it could, the amount was insufficient. Consequently, the court found no fault in the decision to reject the appeal and dismissed the petition as unmerited.