TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stigation. If we deduct the amount of ₹ 35,19,450/- from the total value of ₹ 38,14,125/- recorded in order of Commissioner (Appeal) the case of overvaluation to claim undue benefit against the Appellants will be of ₹ 2,94,675/-. In the present case when the goods have not been released even after the lapse of 18 months, there are no justification for imposing such harsh conditions by the Revenue while permitting provisional release of the goods - the appellant is directed to execute a bond equivalent to the value of the seized goods as has been directed by the Revenue vide its letter dated 02.05.2019 supported by a bank guarantee of ₹ 5,00,000/- only, which is in accordance with the spirit of the Board Circulars referred. The appeal is disposed of, by modifying the letter dated 02.05.2019 to the extent that the value of bank guarantee to be executed is reduced to ₹ 5,00,000/-. - Customs Appeal No. 87806 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/85719/2020 - Dated:- 7-9-2020 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Akhil Maggu, Advocate, for the Appellant Ms. Trupti Chavan, Assistant Commissioner, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06 31737 Total 1000 19645117.30 294675 2.2 By the letter dated 02.05.2019 appellants were given the option to take the provisional release of the seized goods on execution of the bond equivalent to the value of seized goods supported by a bank guarantee of ₹ 30,00,000/- (Rs Thirty Lakhs). Instead of taking the provisional release of the seized goods as directed, appellants preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Customs (Appeal). Commissioner (Appeal) entertained the appeal filed by the Appellant and after hearing the appellants dismissed the appeal filed as per the impugned order referred to in para 1, supra. 2.3 Against this impugned order whereby Commissioner (Appeal) has refused to intervene with the conditions prescribed for release of seized goods, Appellant have filed this appeal in CESTAT. 2.4 Appellants also filed an application for early hearing of the appeal which has been allowed vide Miscellaneous Order No M/86113/2019 dated 03 /12 /2019, and appeal was directed to be listed on 06.01.2020. Subsequently matter was listed on 28.01.2020 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng with the submissions made in the appeal and during the course of argument. 5.1 In the present case the goods were cleared for the purpose of export and have been under seizure from 18.02.2019. After the seizure of the goods, appellants have been given the option for provisional release of the seized goods vide the order/ letter dated 02.05.2019 on execution of bond equivalent to the value of seized goods supported by a bank guarantee of the value of ₹ 30,00,000/-. 5.2. In para 2.2 of his order, Commissioner (Appeal) has recorded, The Original Authority vide order/ Letter dated 02.05.2019 informed the appellant that the Competent Authority has ordered for provisional release of the goods on the condition that the appellant executes a Bond of an amount equivalent to the FOB value of the goods i.e. ₹ 1,96,45,117/- and a Bank Guarantee of ₹ 30,00,000/- with auto renewal clause. By recording as such, the Commissioner (Appeal), admits that the order/ letter under consideration was not an order of the original authority as an adjudicating officer in the matter. The Assistant Commissioner has while issuing the said letter simply communicated the order of the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Authority for provisional release of the goods is quite reasonable, in order to safeguard the Government revenue. 10. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the Order/Letter dated 02.05.2019 issued by the Original Authority for provisional release. The appeal No. 40/2019 filed by M/s. Vishu International is rejected. 5.3 Commissioner (Appeal) has in his order in para 4 of his order recorded the submissions made by the department before him, in following words: 4 ..The Departmental Representative Shri Ashish Titoria (PO/SIIB(X) attended the hearing on 02.07.2019 and reiterated the comments of the department date 01.07.2019. He submitted that summons were issued to Vishu Tarsem Lal, Prop of appellant for appearance on 27.05.2019 but he sought time of 1 month. Another summon was issued for his appearance on 01,07.2019, but he did not appear which shows he is not cooperating with the investigations. In para 7 of his order Commissioner (Appeal) records agreeing with the submissions of the revenue as follows: 7. The appellant contends that they were not given an opportunity to argue their case and refute the allegations made against them. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed to be exported provisionally on the ground that Board s Circular referred above provides for provisional release of only the seized goods. 3. In this regard it is observed that inordinate detention of the seized goods entered for exportation results in delays in fulfillment of export order and at times cancellation of such orders. Detention of goods also adds to congestion in ports besides resulting in payment of demurrage charges to the Custodians. Accordingly, the matter has been reexamined by the Board with the view to ameliorate the aforementioned difficulties faced by exporters and to streamline the procedure of provisional release / exportation of seized goods / goods under investigation on account of mis-declaration in terms of quantity and value etc. 4. Seizure should be resorted to only when the Customs officers have a reason to believe that the goods in question are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962 and thereafter the provisions of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 would 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 sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods and to ensure that where permissible by law, exports should not get unduly delayed, thereby causing congestion in ports as well as delays in fulfilment of export orders. Thus, it was instructed that provisional release of export goods that are suspected of being mis-declared or where declaration is to be confirmed by further enquiry / test or detained/seized for mis-declaration of quantity / value / description should be given on execution of Bond and suitable security to cover the redemption fine and penalty (Para 4 of Board Circular No. 01/2011-Customs dated 04.01.2011). Further, continued detention of export goods in excess of three days must be brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Customs. 2. It has been brought to the notice of the Board that the above instructions are not being implemented by certain field formations and exporting community is aggrieved by the long detention of exports goods. The matter has been raised in many forums and the issue of congestion in ports has also been highlighted by Inter- Ministerial Committee for boosting exports from Micro, Small Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) sector, which pointed out that, besides the Boards aforemention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rculars referred above. 5.7 During the course of hearing, submission was made that the proceedings in the matter are still not finalized and even show cause notice in respect of the seized goods is still to be issued. It was also pointed that appellants were not cooperating and presenting themselves before the investigating authorities. So we direct that the appellant should cooperate fully in the process of investigation and present itself before the concerned investigating authorities whenever called for, so that the proceedings in the matter get finalized at the earliest. Since the proceedings in the matter are still not finalized by the investigating authorities and also the adjudicating authority, the observations made by us are only a prima facie view in the matter. These observations should in no manner be considered as authoritative pronouncement on any of the issues that are unearthed by the investigating authorities and taken up before adjudicating authority. All the authorities are free to take an independent view on the subject matters ignoring any observations that might have been made in this order. 5.8 We are aware of our own order holding that the tribunal cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
