9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been directed to furnish bond and bank guarantee of Rs. 16832900/- which include differential duty of Rs. 8416450/- and penalty of Rs. 8416450/- and an additional deposit Rs. 2878410/- towards provisional duty for provisionally releasing the goods and by the second impugned order had further been informed that the goods have infact not been seized but would be subjected to provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Customs Act') only in case the amount is deposited. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had initially exported the carpets put on account of recession has re-imported them and the respondent-authorities have stored and placed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ential duty, penalty and provisional duty which is not permissible in law. 4. It is next contended that the authorities can only ask the petitioner to deposit the amount of provisional assessment in case any such provisional assessment is made under Section 18 of the Customs Act, and prior to that no amount towards differential duty, penalty or provisional duty can be recovered form the petitioner. It is also contended that in such circumstances the respondent-authorities were only required to impose some reasonable conditions and in any case issue a show cause notice to the petitioner, hear them on their application seeking release of the goods and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... previously. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount of duty required to be paid by them is much less than the amount for which they have been asked to furnish bank guarantee for release of the goods, therefore, in the circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the authorities should reconsider the matter and pass orders after duly hearing the petitioner and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 12-10-2011 and 16-12-2011 deserve to be and are hereby quashed. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the Dy. Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
