Tribunal reduces bank guarantee for imported goods release, deems appellant's proposal adequate.

Kesar Spices Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mundra

Kesar Spices Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mundra - TMI Issues:
- Provisional release of imported goods with conditions of furnishing bond and bank guarantee

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order-in-original related to the provisional release of imported goods, where the Principal Commissioner imposed a condition requiring the appellant to furnish a bond of the full value of the seized goods and provide a bank guarantee of Rs. 85 Lakhs. The appellant challenged this condition, arguing that they had already paid the entire duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 87,05,435, which exceeded the bank guarantee amount demanded by the department.

During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel contended that the bank guarantee of Rs. 85 Lakhs was unnecessary since the duty, interest, and penalty had been fully paid. On the other hand, the Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue cited a previous Tribunal case where a bank guarantee for the entire differential duty and 25% of the goods' value was demanded in a similar situation.

After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the Principal Commissioner had not taken into account the amount already deposited by the appellant when imposing the bank guarantee condition. The Tribunal found the appellant's deposit of Rs. 87,05,435 to be sufficient as security. However, upon reviewing the appellant's request for reconsideration, where they proposed a bank guarantee for 25% of the bond amount due to the substantial payment made, the Tribunal deemed this proposal adequate to protect the Revenue's interests. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the bank guarantee requirement from Rs. 85 Lakhs to 25% of the seized goods' value.

In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned order by reducing the bank guarantee amount and partially allowing the appeal. The decision was pronounced in open court on 27.09.2019.