Tribunal adjusts bank guarantee requirement, deeming original conditions excessive.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal challenging the provisional release order, reducing the bank guarantee requirement from 200% to 50% of the differential duty amount. The Tribunal found the original conditions excessively harsh, considering the uncertainties surrounding the DRI's proposed value enhancement and the comparability of declared values with contemporaneous imports. Justice was deemed better served by adjusting the security deposit amounts in line with the specifics of the case and previous judgments, directing the Respondent Commissioner to permit provisional release under revised terms.

---

---

Issues:
Provisional release order challenged due to harsh conditions imposed.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged a provisional release order issued by the Commissioner of customs, Mundra Commissionerate, communicated by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs house, Mundra. The order required the seized goods to be released provisionally under Section 110A upon execution of a bond for the full value determined by DRI, along with a bank guarantee equal to twice the amount of the differential duty calculated by DRI as security. The appellant contested the conditions as harsh, emphasizing the lack of positive evidence at the preliminary investigation stage. The appellant argued that the DRI's determination of value based on a contract between China and Singapore was irrelevant to their case, presenting evidence of contemporaneous imports with declared values equal to or less than theirs. Citing previous judgments, the appellant asserted that imposing stringent conditions during the provisional release stage was unwarranted. Reference was made to Board Circular No. 35/2017-Cus, allowing for flexibility in security deposit amounts based on the case's specifics, to support the argument against the excessive bank guarantee requirement.

The Revenue, represented by the Superintendent (AR), upheld the Competent Authority's imposed conditions for the goods' provisional release. After considering both sides' submissions and examining the records, the Tribunal acknowledged the preliminary nature of the investigation and refrained from making definitive judgments on the case's merits. However, in light of the prima facie evidence presented, including the direct importation of goods from China via Dubai and the comparability of declared values with contemporaneous imports, the Tribunal found the DRI's proposed value enhancement questionable. Balancing the uncertainties regarding both the DRI's and appellant's declared values, the Tribunal deemed the 200% bank guarantee condition excessively harsh. In alignment with the cited judgments and the case's specifics, the Tribunal concluded that justice would be better served by reducing the bank guarantee requirement to 50% of the differential duty amount. Consequently, the Respondent Commissioner was directed to permit provisional release upon execution of a bond for 100% of the goods' value and furnishing a bank guarantee for 50% of the differential duty by the appellant. The appeal was partially allowed under these revised terms.

---