9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the customs authorities and was ultimately seized on 20.03.2020. Presently it is under the custody of the Customs Department. According to the petitioner, he has deposited the customs duty on account of import of the said vehicle amounting to Rs. 72,48,875.00. The declared assessable value of the vehicle is Rs. 33,71,569.00. Petitioner requested the authority for provisional release of the vehicle. However, no decision was taken on such request of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is submitted that petitioner preferred appeal along with miscellaneous application before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai on 22.06.2020. Petitioner was informed by the CESTAT Registry that it was non-functional till 31.07.2020. Faced with such a situation, the present writ petition came to be filed seeking the relief as indicated above. 4. Respondents have filed affidavit through Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Commissioner of Customs, NS-V, Nhava Sheva, Raigad. Stand taken is that on import of the vehicle vide bill of entry No.6434271 dated 11.01.2020, the assessable value was declared at Rs. 33,71,569.50 and the duty of Rs. 72,48,875.00 was paid. It is stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been vested on the respondents to consider provisional release of seized vehicle under section 110-A of the Act. Respondents are required to exercise the discretion in a fair and judicious manner. Merely on the ground that imported vehicle is a prohibited good, respondents cannot sit over the request of the petitioner without taking any decision under section 110-A. He has also referred to a decision of this Court in Ashish Puravankara Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), (253) E.L.T. 186 and submits that present case is identical to the aforesaid case. Therefore, a similar order as the one passed in Ashish Puravankara (supra) may be passed. In that case, this Court had directed provisional release of the imported Ferrari F 430 car on certain conditions. In fact, in the course of his arguments, he submitted that petitioner is willing to give 100% bank guarantee of the actual value of the car. 7. Per contra, Mr. Jetly submits that there was no reason for the petitioner not co-operating with the adjudicating authority and had he done so, consequential order under section 110-A would have been passed. In any case, when petitioner has already filed appeal before the CESTAT, Court may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onditions as the [adjudicating authority] may require." 12. From a reading of section 110-A, as extracted above, it is evident that any goods, documents or things seized or bank account provisionally attached under section 110 may, pending the order of adjudicating authority, be released to the owner or the bank account holder on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the adjudicating authority may require. Thus, this provision confers a right on the owner to seek provisional release of seized goods etc., while at the same time a corresponding discretionary power is vested on the adjudicating authority who may release the seized goods etc. upon a bond with such security and conditions pending order of the adjudicating authority. Though much emphasis has been placed by the respondents on categorization of the imported vehicle as a prohibited good as defined under sub-section (33) of section 2, we do not find any limitation imposed in section 110-A that a good which is categorized as a prohibited good under section 2(33) cannot be subjected to provisional release under section 110-A. The words "goods, documents and things seized" are expressi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nally release the Ferrari F 430 car imported vide Bill of Entry No.698519 dated 6th February, 2008 subject to the Petitioner executing the bond for full value and furnishing the Bank guarantee of any nationalised Bank for Rs. 15 Lacs. The Petitioner shall not create any third party right, title or interest in the said imported car hereinafter till the adjudication proceedings achieve finality. (b) Subject to compliance of the above conditions, the Respondents shall handover all original documents pertaining to the subject car within two weeks thereafter. (c) The provisional order of release dated 23-2-2010 stands modified to the extent mentioned herein above. 16. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs." 14.1 From the above, it is seen that in that case also stand taken by the respondents was that the imported Ferrari F 430 vehicle was a second hand car which would attract customs duty at a much higher rate, at that point of time 167% in addition to penalty and interest. Adjudication proceedings were still pending. In that case, order for provisional release was passed with conditions which were found to be somewhat harsh. In such circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
