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>Provisional Release Terms Modified, Bank Guarantee Required for Rs.50 Lakhs</h1> <h3>JAYANT HANSRAJ SHAH Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> JAYANT HANSRAJ SHAH Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2008 (229) E.L.T. 339 (Bom.) Issues Involved:1. Clearance of imported goods without deposit or bank guarantee.2. Legality of detention and seizure of goods.3. Application of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act regarding release of goods after six months.4. Provisional release of goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act.5. Variation of terms for provisional release.Detailed Analysis:1. Clearance of Imported Goods Without Deposit or Bank Guarantee:The petitioners sought the unconditional clearance of imported goods without any deposit or bank guarantee, and payment of container detention and demurrage charges. Alternatively, they sought to set aside the order of detention dated 30th March 2007 and to prevent its implementation.2. Legality of Detention and Seizure of Goods:The consignment of cosmetics was imported, and the Bill of Entry was filed on 14th February 2007. Upon examination by the Central Intelligence Unit, discrepancies and excess quantities were found, leading to the detention of goods on 27th February 2007. A seizure memo was issued on 30th March 2007, formally seizing the goods. The petitioner sought provisional release of the goods, which was offered by the respondents on payment of Rs.15 lakhs duty and a Rs.35 lakhs bank guarantee.3. Application of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act:The petitioner argued that under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, if no show cause notice is served within six months of the seizure, the goods must be returned. The respondents countered that the goods were provisionally released as per the petitioner's request, and thus, the goods were no longer under seizure. Consequently, the contention that the goods should be released under Section 110(2) was rejected.4. Provisional Release of Goods Under Section 110A of the Customs Act:The court examined whether the failure to issue a notice under Section 124(a) within six months of seizure grants a vested right under Section 110(2) to release the goods without security. Section 110A allows provisional release of seized goods pending adjudication. The petitioner had applied for provisional release, and an order was passed within six months, thus Section 110(2) was not applicable. The court noted that the provisional release order is a quasi-judicial order, and the goods continue to be under seizure until the adjudication is complete.5. Variation of Terms for Provisional Release:The petitioner requested a variation of the provisional release terms, offering a bank guarantee for the total amount instead of a combination of duty payment and bank guarantee. The court agreed to vary the order to allow the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.50 lakhs instead of the original terms.Conclusion:The court ruled that the provisional release order made within six months of seizure negates the applicability of Section 110(2). The petitioner's request for unconditional release was rejected. However, the court varied the provisional release terms, allowing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.50 lakhs. The rule was made partly absolute, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 