Court quashes bank guarantee demand for seized goods, petitioner to retrieve cargo without bank guarantee. The Court quashed the communication requiring a bank guarantee for provisional release of seized goods, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court quashes bank guarantee demand for seized goods, petitioner to retrieve cargo without bank guarantee.
The Court quashed the communication requiring a bank guarantee for provisional release of seized goods, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to take back the cargo without the bank guarantee. The Court emphasized that the demand for a bank guarantee was unnecessary in the circumstances where the petitioner sought to retrieve the goods due to order cancellation, leading to demurrage charges. The Writ Petitions were disposed of with no costs incurred, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Issues: Challenge to impugned order for cargo clearance and bank guarantee requirement.
Analysis: The petitioner, engaged in exporting Readymade Garments, faced detention of goods by Customs Officers despite submitting required documents. The petitioner sought clearance due to heavy demurrage charges, but the goods were seized on suspicion of being substandard. Subsequently, the petitioner requested to take back the goods upon cancellation of export orders, but the 3rd respondent demanded a bank guarantee for 25% of the value for provisional release. The petitioner contended that such a requirement was contrary to Customs Act provisions allowing for provisional release without bank guarantee in such circumstances.
The Court considered the situation where the petitioner could no longer export the goods and desired to retrieve them due to order cancellation, leading to mounting demurrage charges. The Court opined that the demand for a bank guarantee was unnecessary in this scenario, as the goods were to be returned to the petitioner's premises. Consequently, the Court quashed the communication requiring the bank guarantee and directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to take back the cargo without insisting on a bank guarantee for provisional release.
Therefore, the Court disposed of the Writ Petitions, emphasizing that no costs were to be incurred, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
