Tribunal Orders Revenue to Expedite Adjudication, Allows Provisional Release of Goods

The tribunal directed the revenue to finalize the proceedings and adjudicate the matter within one month. Failure to do so would result in provisional release of detained goods upon execution of a bond and bank guarantee. Detention and demurrage charges were waived, and a certificate for the waiver was ordered.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of Commissioner Customs Nhava Sheva over exported goods.
2. Validity of provisional release order under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Conditions imposed for provisional release, including bond and bank guarantee amounts.
4. Delay in adjudication and its impact on exporters and revenue.
5. Waiver of Show Cause Notice and Personal Hearing by appellants.
6. Detention and demurrage charges on detained goods.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Commissioner Customs Nhava Sheva Over Exported Goods:
The appellants argued that the Commissioner Customs Nhava Sheva had no jurisdiction over goods that had already sailed for export, and the recall of the goods from the foreign port was beyond his territorial jurisdiction as per Notification No 82/2017-Cus (NT) dated 24.08.2017. They cited the case of Noble Asset Co Ltd to support their claim.

2. Validity of Provisional Release Order Under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellants contended that no seizure memo as per Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, had been served upon them, making the order for provisional release under Section 110A invalid and without application of mind. They cited A S Enterprises to support their argument.

3. Conditions Imposed for Provisional Release, Including Bond and Bank Guarantee Amounts:
The appellants found the conditions for provisional release, including a bond amount of Rs. 6,40,08,137 and a bank guarantee of Rs. 75,00,000, to be harsh and arbitrary. They argued that they had only availed benefits of Rs. 12,85,606 under the Customs Act, 1962. They requested a reduction in the bank guarantee amount, citing various cases where goods were released on bond execution without any bank guarantee.

4. Delay in Adjudication and Its Impact on Exporters and Revenue:
The tribunal noted that nearly fifteen months had elapsed since the investigation report was issued, and the matter had not been adjudicated despite the appellants waiving the requirement of a Show Cause Notice and Personal Hearing. The tribunal criticized the revenue for the delay, stating that it had affected both the interests of the exporters and the revenue.

5. Waiver of Show Cause Notice and Personal Hearing by Appellants:
The appellants had waived the requirement of a Show Cause Notice and Personal Hearing to expedite the release of their goods. However, the tribunal noted that this waiver was used by the revenue as a defense for not following the prescribed procedure, leading to significant delays.

6. Detention and Demurrage Charges on Detained Goods:
The appellants argued that they should not be subjected to demurrage and detention charges due to the department's failure to take timely action. The tribunal agreed, noting that the revenue had admitted the goods were detained by them and that these charges should be waived. The tribunal directed the concerned authorities to issue a proper certificate for the waiver of these charges.

Conclusion:
The tribunal directed the revenue to finalize the proceedings and adjudicate the matter within one month from the date of the order. If the revenue could not complete the proceedings within this timeframe, they were to allow the provisional release of the detained goods within a week on execution of a bond equivalent to the value of the goods and a bank guarantee of Rs. 20,00,000. The tribunal also directed the waiver of detention and demurrage charges and the issuance of a proper certificate for the same.

---