TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders provisional clearance of goods upon depositing 20% duty, emphasizes adherence to regulations</h1> <h3>BHAIYA FIBRES LTD. Versus ADDL. DIR. GENERAL OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE</h3> BHAIYA FIBRES LTD. Versus ADDL. DIR. GENERAL OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE - 2012 (281) E.L.T. 396 (Del.) Issues:Imported goods valuation dispute, provisional assessment regulations compliance, release conditions validity.Analysis:The petitioner imported goods from China and faced valuation disputes with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). While some goods were cleared provisionally, others were subject to objections regarding their valuation. The petitioner sought release based on provisional assessment regulations.The court examined the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 1963, which allow for provisional assessment when there is a valuation dispute. The regulations require a bond and a deposit not exceeding 20% of the differential duty. The court emphasized the need to follow these regulations when releasing goods provisionally.The respondent imposed conditions for releasing the goods that exceeded the requirements of the regulations. The respondent demanded the entire differential duty, an indemnity bond, and a bank guarantee, contrary to the 20% deposit stipulated by the regulations. The petitioner challenged these conditions as excessive.The respondent justified their actions based on Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, allowing for provisional release pending adjudication. However, the court found that provisional release and assessment are interconnected, and the principles of the regulations must be followed to safeguard revenue interests.The court directed the respondent to provisionally clear the goods upon the petitioner depositing 20% of the differential duty. The petitioner would also need to execute a bond for the remaining duty. The respondent was instructed to issue a show cause notice before finalizing the assessment.Regarding goods already provisionally assessed in Kolkatta, the court noted that the respondent did not demand anything additional. All clearances were made subject to final adjudication by the respondent. The court disposed of the writ petition, concluding the judgment.
TaxTMI 