9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Rs. 4,08,17,507/- vide Bill of entry No. 6124557, 6124677, 6124787, 6124890 and 6125519 all dated 04.11.2021 filed at Pipavav by allegedly mis-declaring the country of origin. The imported goods (i.e. Dry Dates) were declared to be an UAE origin whereas as per the intelligence, the said imported goods were of Pakistani Origin. As per Notification No. 05/2019-Cus dated 16.02.2019, Customs duty @ 200% was to be imposed on Pakistani Origin dry dates and was to be classified under CTH 9806000. 2.1 Based on the above, an inquiry was initiated against the Appellant and statements of persons were recorded. While the investigation was ongoing, seizure memo dated. 09.12.2021 was issued by the Superintendent (SIIB) Customs House, Pipavav under Section 110 of the Customs Act in respect of the above Bills of Entry seizing the goods under reasonable belief that the same are liable for confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, the Appellant made submissions before the Additional Commissioner, Customs (SIIB), Jamnagar and Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Pipavav Port that the detained goods are edible items approved by CRCL/FSSAI, are perishable in natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ohibited for import and the margin of profit has considerably reduced and fine in lieu thereof even if they finally held to be Pakistan Origin will have to be cleared on excessive duty rate. The high amount of Rs 12 Crores as BG will increase the cost of the importer. These factors appear to have not been considered by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner who has imposed heavy terms of deposit of cash/ BG of Rs. 12 Crore. He has filed a para wise comments vide submission dated 11.10.2022, which is taken on record. 4. Shri P. K Rameshwaram, Additional Commissioner (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that the order dated 22.03.2022 is correct and proper in law considering the fact that the goods were imported from Pakistan as against the UAE. Shri P. K Rameshwaram submitted a written submission in support of his argument during the course of hearing and reiterates the same. Subsequently, he also filed a written submission on 21 October, 2022, all these submissions have been taken on record and considered. 5. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the issue in dispute is of country of origin tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the provisional release order dated 22-03-2022. The actual grievance is with regard to the condition which requires the Appellant to provide security in the form of a bankguarantee or cash deposit for a sum of 12 crores. 5.1 We find that Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for provisional release of goods, documents and things seized pending adjudication. Any goods, documents or things seized under Section 110 of the Act, may, pending the order of the adjudicating officer, be released to the owner on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the Commissioner of Customs 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. upon a bond with such security and conditions pending order of the adjudicating authority. Section110A provides a pragmatic mechanism to facilitate provisional release of seized goods to the owner pending adjudication but at the same time protecting the interest of the revenue. Keeping the above in mind, the provision is req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of pushing them out of system. The Court also deprecated the action of Customs authorities and observed that the condition of furnishing of bond for value of seized goods and payment of differential duty, does not put extraordinary financial burden on importer and does not constitute impediment, in their normal business functioning. In the matter of Amit Enterprises v. Union of India - 2011 (269) E.L.T. 314 (P&H) the relevant observations of the Hon'ble High court reads as under : 11. We find merit in the contention that requirement of giving a declaration that the petitioner will not challenge the value of the goods, is unreasonable and arbitrary. The petitioner cannot be debarred from asserting its version as to the value and classification of goods. If such a condition is allowed to be imposed, the department can unilaterally allege any valuation and continue to keep the goods under detention unless the affected party agrees to withdraw the challenge to the valuation. This will amount to denial of justice. Similarly, requirement of furnishing bank guarantee equal to 25% of the full market value of the seized goods is also, in the facts and circumstances of the case, arbit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
