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 modifies communication, allows release of seized goods without bank guarantee. Petitioner to deposit duty in advance.</h1> <h3>Adhunik Crop Care Private Limited Versus Union of India & others </h3> Adhunik Crop Care Private Limited Versus Union of India & others - TMI Issues:- Modification of communication directing cash security/bank guarantee- Applicability of previous court decision on similar condition- Seizure of goods due to failure to provide bank guarantee- Evasion of duty and initiation of criminal/civil action- Modification of department's directions regarding release of seized goodsAnalysis:The writ petition sought modification of communications requiring cash security/bank guarantee equivalent to 25% of the value of goods. The petitioner relied on a previous court decision in Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, where a similar condition imposed by the Central Excise & Customs Department was nullified. The court directed the return of deposited amount and release of goods without bank guarantee. However, the respondent department claimed total duty evasion, arguing the previous decision did not apply.Due to the failure to provide a bank guarantee for future final penalty, part of the goods seized became time-barred. The court noted that the department could initiate criminal and civil action for duty evasion. Citing the Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. case, the court modified the department's directions. It ordered the release of seized goods upon depositing duty in advance and furnishing a B-11 bond for future final penalty, without insisting on a bank guarantee.In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition by modifying the department's directions. It allowed the release of seized goods to the petitioner without the requirement of a bank guarantee, emphasizing the deposit of duty in advance and the furnishing of a B-11 bond. The decision aimed to address the issue of goods becoming time-barred due to the failure to provide the bank guarantee, while also acknowledging the department's right to take legal action for duty evasion.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
