TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wner of the goods - decided in favor of appellant. Whether conditions imposed for provisional release are harsh to the appellant, if so, what should be the conditions for provisional release? - Held that: - in case of Kuber Casting (P) Ltd. V/s Union of India [2013 (9) TMI 784 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] the Hon’ble High Court after examining the issue held that the bank guarantee of 30 per cent of the value of the goods seized is harsh condition to the appellant and thereafter the Hon’ble High Court direct to pay the differential duty and on payment of the differential duty, the Adjudicating Authority was directed to release the goods to the appellant - the appellant directed to pay the differential duty of ₹ 21,78,906/- on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roup (India) Pvt. Ltd, which were sold to the appellant were seized and during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant sought provisional release of the said watches under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order was passed. 3. As per the impugned order, the goods were ordered for provisional release on the condition that the importer, M/s Swatch Group (India) Pvt. Ltd shall furnish a bond and shall pay differential duty on account of undervaluation of seized goods and to furnish bank guarantee for the release of the said goods. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before me. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as appellant is the owner of the goods and the goods have been seized from his p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before this Tribunal. The case law relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant are not relevant to the facts of the case. 6. Heard the parties and considered submissions. 7. On the basis of the argument advanced by both the sides the following issue emerges before me. 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances in the case, the goods can be released to the appellant being owner of the goods or not? 2. Whether conditions imposed for provisional release are harsh to the appellant, if so, what should be the conditions for provisional release? Issue No. 1 8. I have gone through the impugned order, in paragraph L of the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority has recorded as under:- Watches imported by Swatch Group ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] the goods are required to be released to the owner of the goods. From the documents produced before me, it is clear that the appellant is the owner of the impugned goods. Therefore, condition (i) of the impugned order is contrary to law. Therefore, I modify the condition (i) of the impugned order as under:- 12. M/s Ethos Ltd shall furnish a bond equivalent to ₹ 25,17,10,823/- in respect of seized goods as listed in Annexure A to DRI MZU Mumbai letter dated 06/06/2017. Issue No 1 is answered, accordingly. Issue No.2 13. I have gone through the impugned order and found that the conditions imposed for provisional release is harsh as per various judicial pronouncements of the Hon ble High Courts as well as of this Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
