TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri U. H. Jadhav, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. SD/INT-57/2007 SIIB (I) JNCH SG/MISC-288/2007 SIIB(I) dated 23.1.2008. 2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the seizure of electronic goods imported by the appellant herein vide Bill of Entry No.966967 dt. 26.10.2007. The officers of the Revenue conducted a detailed examination of the cartons which were found in the said container and made panchanama. In the examination it was noticed that the consignment contained Air Conditioners, Sony, LCD Television/Data Projectors/Digital Video Camera, Digital Camera (Video/Still) etc. The said goods were detained by the officers, on reasonable belief that they we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same provisionally. 3. Against this order the appellant is in appeal before me. 4. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the conditions which have been laid down by the Commissioner of Customs for the provisional release of the goods are very harsh. It is his submission that for the provisional release of the goods production of licences is not at all required subsequently. It is his submission that though the bond for full amount of the assessable value is sought, there is a direction to give Bank Guarantee to the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs. It is the submission that the issue in this case does not require such heavy bank guarantee. It is his submission that the provisions of Section 110A of the Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of Rs. 50 lakhs as bank guarantee, for correct reasoning, he seeks some time for the clarification from the concerned department. It is the statement of the Ld. JDR that the amount of the bond with, bank guarantee is decided on the duty liability, the value of the goods and the penalty and redemption fine that may be imposed on the appellants. 6. Ld. Counsel would submit that since consignment is a live one, any time granted, would definitely be at appellant's cost. It is his submission that the provision of Section 110A would apply and even if this is a interlocatory order and the said order is appealable order, by combined reading of the provisions of Section 2(1), Section 110A and Section 129A of Customs Act. It is his submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 128, as it stood immediately before the appointed day; (d) an order passed by the Board or the [Commissioner of Customs] either before or after the appointed day, under Section 130, as it stood immediately before that day: It can be noted that the provisions of Section 129A(1)(a) clearly indicate an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority. The definition of adjudicating authority as is found in provisions of Section 2(1) of the Act, which reads "Adjudicating Authority means any authority competent to pass any order or decision under this Act, but does not included the board of Commissioner (Appeals) or Appellate Tribunal". It can be seen from the above reproduced definition under the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appeal does not lie against such order is without any basis and is rejected. 10. The second submission of the Ld. JDR that this is a letter, but the said letter indicates the decision of the Ld. Commissioner. I find that in an identical situation, Tribunal in series of judgment has been consistently holding that the order of the Collector but intimated by Superintendent, appeal, against such order, will lie with Tribunal. This being an order of Commissioner having held in earlier para that this order is appealable, the ratio in the cases of Indian Sugar General Engg. Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise as reported at [1992 (62) E.L.T. 657 (Tribunal)] and G.E. Apar Lighting (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entire amount of duty which could be collected on the imported consignment may come to approximately Rs.38 lakhs. In view of this, the appellant is directed to offer security of 25% of the total amount of the duty liability, as a Revenue deposit. 14. In view of the above reasoning, and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the seized goods shall released provisionally by the authority without insisting for licence, on following conditions: (i) appellant to execute a bond for the full amount of the market value as indicated in the above paragraphs, (ii) The appellant to offer Revenue deposit of 25% of the amount of the duty to the authorities. (iii) Appellant to discharge the entire duty liability by cash as and wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
