2019 (5) TMI 1036 - HC - Customs

High Court Upholds Provisional Release of Imported Goods with Revised Conditions, Emphasizes Case-Specific Approach

The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Gr. 3) Versus M/s. Max Enterprises

The High Court upheld the Writ Court's decision to grant provisional release of imported goods with revised conditions, rejecting the appellant's ... Provisional release of imported goods - Circular bearing No.35/2017-Customs, dated 16.08.2017 - HELD THAT:- The revenue need not have any apprehension that as the respondent writ petitioner has a import and export code and even assuming that he does not co-operate with the adjudication by the appellant in Chennai, he can be traced anywhere in the Country and proper legal action can be initiated against him. It is needless to state that the respondent writ petitioner should co-operate in the adjudication process. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is no error in the discretion exercised by the learned Writ Court and the direction issued therein. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we decline to interfere with the order and direction issued by the learned Writ Court. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Appeal dismissed. Issues:Challenge to order granting provisional release of imported goods subject to conditions - Imposition of onerous Bank Guarantee - Applicability of Circular No.35/2017-Customs - Exercise of discretion by the Writ Court - Concerns regarding importer's cooperation in adjudication process.Analysis:The respondent writ petitioner contested an order granting provisional release of imported goods subject to conditions imposed by the appellant. The main contention was the requirement to furnish a Bank Guarantee for a significant sum, which was deemed excessive and against established legal precedents. The respondent argued that the dispute was solely related to the valuation of goods, and imposing such a condition was unwarranted. Legal references were made to support this position, including judgments from the Delhi High Court and a Division Bench of the Madras High Court.The appellant department defended the condition, citing past court directives for depositing enhanced duty and referring to a relevant Customs Circular. The Single Bench, after considering the nature of the goods and various legal precedents, ruled that a lower deposit amount and a personal bond would suffice for release, along with waiver of demurrages and detention charges. However, the High Court disagreed with the Single Bench's interpretation of the Circular, stating it applied to provisional release cases where goods were seized and import was disallowed.Upon detailed examination, the High Court found no error in the Writ Court's exercise of discretion in granting release subject to conditions. The appellant's concern about the importer's cooperation and potential non-compliance was addressed, with the High Court asserting that legal action could be taken if necessary. The judgment emphasized that each case of provisional release should be assessed based on its unique circumstances, without a uniform approach. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere with the Writ Court's decision, dismissing the writ appeal without costs.The final directives included the release of goods upon the remittance of a specified duty percentage and a personal bond, along with the issuance of a waiver certificate for demurrages and detention charges. The appellant was instructed to issue a show cause notice to the respondent for participation in the adjudication process within a specified timeframe.