9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 110A of the Customs Act in respect of the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.9988693 dated 06.6.2017. 3. The petitioner approached this Court earlier and filed W.P.No.23392 of 2017 praying for a direction upon the respondents therein to provisionally release the goods covered by the said Bill of Entry under Section 110A of the said Act. By order dated 12.9.2017, this Court, taking into consideration the fact that the Bill of Entry was filed on 06.6.2017 and that examination of goods has been done by the Authorities, directed the respondents therein to consider the representation of the petitioner for provisional release of the goods, which are not prohibited and where are no issues including issues pertaining to intellectual property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easonable. 7. However, from the counter affidavit, this Court finds that the manner, in which, the quantum for furnishing of bank guarantee was calculated at Rs. 1.70 Crores, was not clearly stated. Therefore, when matter came up for hearing on 10.4.2018, the learned Senior Standing Counsel was directed to get specific instructions from the respondent. Pursuant to that, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Legal Sea-II) addressed the learned Senior Panel Counsel vide letter dated 11.4.2018 stating that the sum of Rs. 1.70 Crores was arrived at on the levies to be imposed during adjudication namely redemption fine under Section 125 of the said Act on the assessable value and penalty under Sections 112A and 114 A of the said Act. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods and the Revenue. In other words, the interest of the Revenue should be sufficiently safeguarded, so that when the Adjudicating Authority takes up the case for final adjudication, they should be able to recover the duties and other levies and the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be reduced to a paper order. 12. Bearing in mind the object of the said provision, if this Court examines the impugned order, it is found that the direction to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 1.70 Crores apart from executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2.29 Crores and payment of differential duty of Rs. 64,30,210/- appear to be onerous. Therefore, this Court is of the view that interest of the Revenue can be protected sufficient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
