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 Order: Timelines for Reply, Assessment & Release of Security</h1> <h3>M/s. PPN Power Generating Company Pvt. Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs</h3> M/s. PPN Power Generating Company Pvt. Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs - TMI Issues Involved:1. Finalization of assessments for imports under the project import scheme.2. Refund of security deposit and return of bank guarantees.3. Challenge to the proceedings dated 22.05.2018 regarding alleged under-valuation of imported goods.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Finalization of Assessments for Imports:The petitioner sought a Mandamus directing the respondents to finalize the assessments of all imports made under the project import scheme. The petitioner had registered their project under the Project Import Regulations, 1986, and executed a bond and provided a security deposit and bank guarantees. Despite multiple requests and submissions of necessary documents, the provisional assessments remained incomplete. The respondents argued that the delay was due to an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), which alleged under-valuation of imports and a resultant differential duty of Rs. 9.54 crores.2. Refund of Security Deposit and Return of Bank Guarantees:The petitioner requested the refund of the Rs. 84,00,000/- security deposit, the return of bank guarantees amounting to Rs. 13.77 crores, and the cancellation of the bond for Rs. 6,38,05,72,000/-. The petitioner argued that the prolonged delay in finalizing the provisional assessments caused financial strain due to the continuous renewal of bank guarantees. The petitioner cited CBEC Circular No.22/2011-Cus, which stipulates that bank guarantees should not be retained beyond six months after submission of necessary documents. The respondents contended that the circular did not apply due to the ongoing DRI investigation and the substantial alleged duty evasion.3. Challenge to the Proceedings Dated 22.05.2018:The petitioner challenged the communication dated 22.05.2018, which was perceived as a show cause notice issued after 16 years, arguing it was barred by limitation. The respondents clarified that the communication was not a show cause notice but a letter seeking clarification based on the DRI report. The court construed the communication as a show cause notice and directed the petitioner to respond to it. The court emphasized that the provisional assessment should be completed expeditiously, considering the significant delay and financial implications for the petitioner.Conclusion:The court acknowledged the substantial delay in completing the provisional assessments but highlighted the serious nature of the DRI's allegations. It directed the petitioner to submit a reply to the impugned proceedings within two weeks, after which the second respondent should provide a personal hearing and complete the provisional assessment within four weeks. If the petitioner succeeds, the security deposit, bank guarantees, and bond should be released immediately. If the petitioner fails, the second respondent should not invoke the bank guarantees within the appeal period, allowing the petitioner to seek interim relief from the Appellate Authority. The court did not express any view on the merits of the contentions regarding the differential duty liability.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
