Tribunal adjusts release terms for seized goods, mandates bond & bank guarantee

The tribunal modified the conditions for the provisional release of seized goods, directing the appellant to execute a bond equivalent to the goods' value and a reduced bank guarantee of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Emphasizing the appellant's cooperation with the investigation, the tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to Board Circulars facilitating exports and avoiding delays. The tribunal's observations were preliminary and not binding on the final case adjudication.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Provisional release of seized goods.
2. Conditions imposed for provisional release.
3. Non-cooperation of the appellant with the investigation.
4. Applicability of Board Circulars for provisional release.
5. Assessment of IGST refund and overvaluation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Provisional Release of Seized Goods:
The appellant filed 10 shipping bills for the export of goods, claiming IGST refund and drawback. However, the goods were seized on 18.02.2019 for being grossly overvalued to claim undue benefits. The original authority offered provisional release of the seized goods on execution of a bond equivalent to the value of the goods and a bank guarantee of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The appellant appealed against this order, but the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original conditions for provisional release.

2. Conditions Imposed for Provisional Release:
The appellant argued that the conditions for provisional release were too harsh and not feasible to comply with. The goods had been under seizure for over 18 months, causing significant financial damage due to the delay in IGST refund. The appellant cited Board Circular No. 30/2013-Cus. dated 05.08.2013, which advises against imposing harsh conditions for the provisional release of export goods. The tribunal found that the inclusion of the IGST amount in the bank guarantee calculation was unjustified since the amount was already with the revenue. The tribunal directed the appellant to execute a bond equivalent to the value of the goods and reduced the bank guarantee to Rs. 5,00,000/-.

3. Non-cooperation of the Appellant with the Investigation:
The revenue argued that the appellant had not been cooperating with the investigation despite repeated summons. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the appellant's non-cooperation prima facie indicated an attempt to delay the investigation. The tribunal emphasized that while the appellant must cooperate with the investigation, the adjudicating authority must also provide an opportunity for the appellant to present their case before passing any adverse orders.

4. Applicability of Board Circulars for Provisional Release:
The tribunal referred to Board Circulars No. 01/2011-Cus dated 04.01.2011 and No. 30/2013-Cus. dated 05.08.2013, which stress the importance of facilitating exports and avoiding delays. The circulars mandate provisional release of export goods suspected of misdeclaration on execution of a bond and suitable security. The tribunal found that the conditions imposed by the revenue were not in line with the spirit of these circulars and adjusted the conditions accordingly.

5. Assessment of IGST Refund and Overvaluation:
The tribunal noted that the revenue's case was based on the premise that the appellant overvalued the goods to claim higher export benefits. However, the tribunal found that the IGST amount paid by the appellant should not be included in the bank guarantee calculation since it was already with the revenue. The tribunal determined that the overvaluation to claim undue benefits amounted to Rs. 2,94,675/- after deducting the IGST amount. The tribunal directed the reduction of the bank guarantee to Rs. 5,00,000/-.

Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of by modifying the conditions for provisional release. The appellant was directed to execute a bond equivalent to the value of the seized goods and a bank guarantee of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The tribunal emphasized the need for the appellant to cooperate with the investigation for its speedy completion. The observations made by the tribunal were preliminary and not binding on the final adjudication of the case.

---