9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed to observe and direct as follows: "1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondents to forthwith allow the petitioner to export the goods covered under shipping bill no. 7083124. 3. Mr. Raju, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner with an object to export areca nut powder had generated the aforesaid shipping bill no.7083124 dated 7th January, 2025, for the purpose of Let Export Order (LEO) to be issued by the customs authorities. Unfortunately, the same was not issued and the petitioner came to learn that on 7th January, 2025 two officials from the department of the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above application. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, prima facie, it would transpire that the petitioner claims itself to be a 100% Export Oriented Unit and the export in question was to set sail on 8th January, 2025. Although, the respondents have taken samples of goods, there has been no determination in this regard by the respondents as of now. The petitioner's application permitting the petitioner to allow export of goods on provisional basis also remains pending. Having regard thereto, I direct the respondents to forthwith take a decision on the petitioner's application to allow exports on a provisional basis as appearing at pages 43 and 50 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ata v. M/s J.S. Jewels Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2025(2) TMI 887-Calcutta High Court, he would submit that the direction issued by the Tribunal directing that the respondent therein to provide a Bond for the full value of the seized good supported by a Bank guarantee to the extent of 25% of the value of seized goods was not interfered with. By also relying on a Judgment delivered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in the case of Priyanka Maurya v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Kolkata, reported in 2017(345) E.L.T. 91 (Cal.), he would submit that in an identical set of facts, the Coordinate Bench by taking note of Para 3.2 (part-1) of chapter 17 of the Central Excise Manual Supplementary instructions read with a circular d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35/2017-Cus dated 16th August, 2017 regarding provisional release of seized goods pending adjudication by Customs authorities under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. Referring to the above guidelines and in particular paragraph 2.2 thereof, he would submit that the competent authority while directing furnishing of bank guarantee or security, is required to cover not only the entire amount of duty/differential duty leviable on the seized goods being provisionally released but while computing the same the competent authority is also required to take note of the market price and estimated margin of profit of the said goods. Having regard thereto, according to him, the aforesaid computation made by the concerned respondent authorities is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the goods has been directed to furnish an amount of Rs. 3 crore as bank guarantee which is far beyond the value of the goods. Although Mr. Dey, learned advocate representing the respondents has submitted that the same is likely to cover the redemption fine and penalty in case the goods are liable to be confiscated, the documents as available on record do not disclose that the steps taken by the respondents contemplate confiscation of the said goods. Nothing has also been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the respondents are contemplating confiscation of the goods. 9. Be that as it may, since the aforesaid provisional release does not identify the reasons for determining the amount of security by way of furnishing bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case may be, and also noting the notification No. 38/2018-custom(NT) dated 11th May, 2018 notifying Cargo Manifest and Regulation 2018 and in particular Regulation 10(L) thereof, which provides that the authorized carrier shall not demand any container detention charges for the good detained by customs for the purpose of verifying entries made under Section 46 or Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962, if the entries are found to be correct and having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the view that the detention charges for the time being subject to the investigation to be made by the concerned respondents be not saddled on the petitioner, though appropriate bond/security may be obtained in this regard. 12. With the aforesaid observations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
