TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 modifies orders, releases goods upon payment, bank guarantee, and bond.</h1> The court modified previous orders and directed the release of goods subject to specific conditions. The petitioner was instructed to pay the declared tax ... Onerous conditions for provisional release of confiscated goods - discrepancy in the quantity of the goods - goods imported by the petitioner are lying in the ware house of the respondents department since 2011 - Held that:- provision release allowed subject to condition that, The petitioner is directed to pay 100% tax on the value declared by them i.e., ₹ 76,64,324/- as against the value of ₹ 1,39,73,896/- determined by the department - For the differential in duty i.e., ₹ 43,80,981/- the petitioner is directed to furnish bank guarantee - petitioner is also directed to execute a bond for 100% of the value assessed by the department. Decided partly in favor of assessee. Issues:1. Challenge to communication demanding bank guarantee for differential duty arising from exchange rate.2. Alleged discrepancy in goods imported leading to seizure and refusal of release by respondents.3. Imposition of onerous conditions for provisional release of goods.4. Legal arguments based on previous court decisions regarding release of goods subject to conditions.5. Consideration of value adopted by department for releasing goods.6. Determination of whether conditions imposed are onerous and what conditions can be imposed.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged a communication demanding a bank guarantee for the differential duty arising from an exchange rate issue. The petitioner imported various consumer goods and faced allegations of discrepancy in the quantity declared in the imported goods, leading to seizure by the respondents. Despite multiple legal proceedings and directions from the court, the goods remained unreleased. The petitioner argued that the conditions imposed for the release were onerous, indirectly denying them the release of goods.2. The legal counsel for the petitioner cited court decisions, including one from the Supreme Court, to support the argument that goods can be released subject to conditions deemed fit by the court. They also referenced a Delhi High Court case regarding the release of goods upon depositing a certain amount. On the contrary, the respondents argued that recent Supreme Court decisions required payment of a certain percentage of the demanded amount for releasing goods, emphasizing the need to consider the valuation adopted by the department.3. The court considered whether the conditions imposed were onerous and what conditions could be justly imposed on the petitioner. After reviewing the submissions and the prolonged detention of the goods, the court modified the previous orders and directed the release of the goods subject to specific conditions. The petitioner was directed to pay the declared value as tax, furnish a bank guarantee for the differential duty, and execute a bond for the assessed value by the department. Upon compliance with these conditions, the respondents were instructed to release the goods within a specified timeframe.4. The court's decision aimed to balance the interests of both parties while ensuring compliance with legal requirements. By providing a detailed order with specific conditions, the court resolved the dispute regarding the release of the goods, thereby disposing of the writ petition without imposing any costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
