TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the order - goods granted provisional release on fulfillment of conditions imposed by the Court - petition allowed. - W. A. No. 1138 of 2017 and CMP No. 15781 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 19-9-2017 - S. Manikumar And V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. For the Appellants : Mr. T. Pramodkumar Chopda For the Respondents : Mr. G. Viswanathan ( for R1 ) JUDGMENT ( Order of the Court was made by S. Manikumar, J. ) Challenge in this appeal is to an order made in W.P.No.19376 of 2017 dated 04.08.2017, by which, the Writ Court directed provisional release of the goods subject to the petitioner complying with the conditions imposed by this Court in W.P.Nos.43062 to 43070 of 2016 and W.P.Nos.1620 to 1628 of 2017 respectively dated 22.12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld come into play. However, there may be situations when the goods are to be detained for purpose of tests etc. to confirm the declaration. In such cases the endeavour should be to quickly undertake the necessary action (test/enquiry etc.) and take appropriate legal action thereafter so that the period of detention is kept to the minimum. Thus, the following course of action is prescribed in respect of goods entered for exportation: (a) In case the export goods are found to be mis-declared in terms of quantity, value and description and are seized for being liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962, the same may be ordered to be released provisionally on execution of a Bond of an amount equivalent to the value of goods along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as the revenue. 35. As observed supra, in none of the final orders passed by the writ Court, there is a clear finding, as to whether the conditions imposed on 10.01.2017 are within the powers of the Customs department in terms of the Board's circular stated supra. 36. Clause No.4(a) of the circular, clearly states that, in case the export goods are found to be misdeclared in terms of quantity, value and description and are seized for being liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962, the same may be ordered to be released provisionally, on execution of a Bond of an amount equivalent to the value of goods along with furnishing an appropriate security in order to cover the redemption fine and penalty. 37. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he discretion of the department and in the case on hand the department has sought for Indemnity Bond for value of goods and bank guarantee towards redemption, fine and penalty. The petitioner has been given the option to seek for release of the goods by furnishing bank guarantee from a nationalised bank equivalent to 30% of the export duty 39. It is the case of the department, that there is misdeclaration and attempt to evade duty. On the facts and circumstances of the case, discretion exercised by the department, directing the exporters to submit bank guarantee, towards redemption, fine and penalty, cannot be said to be erroneous or contrary to the orders of this Court, in W.P.Nos.43062 to 43070 of 2016 dated 22.12.2016. 40. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1992 SCR (1) 686: 1992 SCC Suppl. (2) 651 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the purpose of interlocutory orders is to preserve in status-quo the rights of the parties, so that, the proceedings do not become infructuous by any unilateral overt acts by one side or the other during its pendency. 44. In M/s.Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd., Vs. Church of South India Trust Association, Madras, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1439, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the distinction between quashing of an order and staying the operation of an order, as hereunder: ... while considering the effect of an interim staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of the operation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ureau Vs. Dilip Pralhad Namade reported in AIR 2004 SC 2950 : (2004) 3 SCC 619, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no scope for laying down a law at the interlocutory stage. 48. In the light of the discussion and decisions, we are of the view that common orders passed in W.P.Nos.7429 and 7430 of 2017 dated 18.07.2017, requires interference. Orders impugned in these writ appeals are set aside. Writ Appeals are allowed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 3. Instant Writ Appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs III (SIIB), Customs House, Chennai and others are on identical facts. Though a representation has been made for filing counter affidavit, in the instant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
