Court reduces deposit to 20% in Customs case, orders provisional release.

The court partially allowed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to deposit only 20% of the differential duty instead of the imposed 100%, excluding the 25% bank guarantee requirement. The goods were ordered to be released provisionally, with both parties retaining their rights and contentions. The court found the 100% duty condition to be excessive and considered a lower deposit percentage in line with the amended Customs Act.

---

---

Issues:
Release of goods and quashing of order by Commissioner.

Analysis:
The writ petitioner filed a bill of entry for various goods imported from China, which were seized by customs authorities due to alleged undervaluation. The petitioner sought provisional release of the goods, but the Commissioner imposed a condition of depositing 100% differential duty or providing a bank guarantee for the same amount, along with other conditions. The petitioner argued that such a condition was unwarranted and arbitrary considering the nature of the goods and the circumstances. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the petitioner had appellate remedies available and that the customs authorities were justified in imposing standard conditions. The court noted the amendment in the Customs Act and found that a remedy was available if the pre-deposit was restricted to 7.5% of the adjudicated amount. Therefore, the court considered the imposition of 100% duty as onerous and directed the petitioner to deposit only 20% of the differential duty as per the provisional order, excluding the requirement of 25% bank guarantee. The respondents were directed to release the goods provisionally, while reserving all rights and contentions of the parties. The writ petition was partly allowed based on the above terms.

---