Court sets aside order requiring personal bond and bank guarantee, emphasizes fairness and due process under Customs Act.

The court set aside the impugned order demanding a personal bond and bank guarantee without clear quantification, directing the petitioner to execute a personal bond and furnish a bank guarantee within two weeks for the provisional release of goods. The court emphasized the importance of fairness, reasonableness, and adherence to due process in such matters under the Customs Act, highlighting the need to avoid prejudging the duty liability before adjudication. Additionally, the Customs Department was directed to consider the petitioner's application for waiver of demurrage and detention charges.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 110(A) of the Customs Act for provisional release of goods.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner imported goods from China, detained due to suspicion of mis-declaration of retail selling price. The petitioner paid substantial amounts as directed, totaling &8377; 17.71 lakh.

2. The impugned order demanded a personal bond of &8377; 50,39,326 and a bank guarantee of &8377; 46,69,783 without clear quantification. The petitioner sought details and release without further payment.

3. The court noted that adjudication is pending, and demanding quantification prematurely would prejudge the matter. No notice was issued for duty liability on earlier imports, making current conditions unsustainable.

4. The respondent argued based on legal precedents from Delhi High Court and Madras High Court, emphasizing compliance with import conditions and penalty provisions for misdeclaration under the Act.

5. The court differentiated the case from Delhi High Court judgments, stating the issue was retail price misdeclaration, not prohibition of imports. The correctness of conditions imposed by the respondent was under scrutiny.

6. Referring to a Bombay High Court case, the court emphasized the need for clear principles and reasonableness in demanding duties for past imports without due process.

7. The court set aside the impugned communication, directing the petitioner to execute a personal bond and furnish a bank guarantee within two weeks. The goods were to be released upon compliance.

8. The court directed the Customs Department to consider the petitioner's application for waiver of demurrage and detention charges, issuing a certificate for the period of detention till release.

Conclusion:
The Writ Petition was disposed of with the above directions, emphasizing the need for fairness, reasonableness, and adherence to due process in matters of provisional release of goods under the Customs Act.

---