TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. The submission made by the counsel for the respondents that an appeal would lie to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the said orders and this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, is not acceptable in view of the fact that the detention of the goods has been made since 1-7-2011 onwards and the conditions imposed by the Joint Commissioner are in violation of the directions issued by this Court in Amit Enterprises [2011 (5) TMI 375 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] & Era International [2011 (8) TMI 885 - Punjab and Haryana High Court]. Therefore, in our opinion, the alternative remedy is not an efficacious remedy to which the petitioner can be relegated to. Decided in favor o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3920965, dated 28-6-2011, 3920963, dated 28-6-2011, 4133390, dated 21-7-2011, 4538168, dated 3-9-2011, 4720342, dated 23-9-2011 and 4721810, dated 23-9-2011 for clearance of the said consignments under Customs Tariff Heading 8447 20 90 and Central Excise Tariff Heading 8447 20 90 declaring the value and other particulars as per the information supplied on the import documents supplied by the foreign supplier. 3. On 1-7-2011, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Ludhiana raided the office, residential and godown premises of the petitioner and nothing incriminating was found against the petitioner who was out of the country. The officers sealed the residential premises of the petitioner and detained 88 ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the machines detained vide panchnama dated 1-7-2011 since the same had been cleared by officials of the Customs Department after examination and proper assessment of the Customs Duties under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) whereas the petitioner was coerced to deposit ₹ 15,00,000/- vide demand drafts on the pretext that the machines shall be released upon making such deposits but the respondents had not released the goods. Accordingly, seizure memos dated 1-7-2011, 12-9-2011, 17-10-2011, 18-11-2011, 2-12-2011, 17-1-2012, 23-2-2012, 27-2-2012, 12-3-2012 17-3-2012 were challenged. The petitioner had thereafter regularly been requesting for the release of the machines and the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used Flat Bed Knitting Machines. The petitioner, vide letter dated 22-11-2011, submitted a demand draft of ₹ 10,00,000/- towards deposit against the demand raised, if any, against it in future and requested to return one of the cheque submitted on 4-10-2011 which was returned. The plea of alternative remedy was also raised by the respondents that the petitioner had the remedy under Section 110A of the Act. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has restricted his relief to the condition Nos. (iii) (iv) of the provisional release orders issued by the respondents vide letters dated 23-2-2012, 27-2-2012, 12-3-2012, 16-3-2012. The said conditions reads as under : (iii) On furnishing bank guarantee of an amount of ₹ 21,00,000/- with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allege any valuation and continue to keep the goods under detention unless the affected party agrees to withdraw the challenge to the valuation. This will amount to denial of justice. Similarly, requirement of furnishing bank guarantee equal to 25% of the full market value of the seized goods is also, in the facts and circumstances of the case, arbitrary. Mere fact that condition of 10% of bank guarantee was upheld by this Court in T.L. Verma and M/s. Kundan Rice Mills cannot be justification to impose such conditions in each and every case. In those cases, this Court was satisfied that the importers had adopted fraudulent tactics which, prima facie, justified opinion for confiscation of goods. The said judgments cannot apply to every case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mere dispute of classification or valuation could not justify power of confiscation and imposing of condition of furnishing of bank guarantee equal to 25% of the value of the goods. The said C.W.P. No. 13131 of 2011 5 judgment is not shown to be distinguishable in its applicability to the present case. 8. Accordingly, we allow this petition and direct immediate provisional release of goods on conditions mentioned in the order of provisional release except the requirement of declaration that the petitioner will not dispute the value of goods and will furnish bank guarantee. In respect of second consignment, the release will be on payment of customs duty as per valuation of the chartered engineer. It is, however, made clear that this order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
