Tribunal modifies release conditions for seized goods, requiring customs duty, bond, and bank guarantee.

The tribunal found the conditions imposed in the provisional release order dated 06.04.2022 to be unjustified and incorrect. It modified the conditions, allowing the seized goods' release upon payment of customs duty, execution of a bond covering the full value of the goods, and furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 1 Crore. The appeal was allowed, balancing justice and revenue protection.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the provisional release order dated 06.04.2022 requiring a bank guarantee of 15% of the value of seized goods.
2. Jurisdiction of the Customs Department to review the provisional release order dated 04.02.2022.
3. Adequacy and reasonableness of the conditions imposed for the provisional release of goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Provisional Release Order:
The appellant contested the order dated 06.04.2022, which mandated a bank guarantee of 15% of the value of the seized goods. The appellant argued that this requirement was "without any basis and bad in law" since they were willing to pay the entire duty without claiming any benefit under Free Trade Agreements (FTA). They relied on several judicial precedents, including Amit Enterprises Vs. Union of India and Om Udyog vs. Joint Commissioner of Customs, which supported their stance that once duty is paid, additional guarantees are unwarranted. The tribunal agreed, noting that the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of 15% of the value of goods was "arbitrary, excessive, and bad in law."

2. Jurisdiction of the Customs Department to Review the Provisional Release Order:
The appellant argued that the Customs Department lacked the authority to review the provisional release order dated 04.02.2022. They cited the decision in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Union of India, which states that once a judgment or order becomes final, it cannot be altered unless the statute explicitly permits it. The tribunal concurred, stating, "Under the Customs Act, there is no provision granting power to the department to review an order passed under Section 110A." Thus, the tribunal found the impugned order dated 06.04.2022 to be "bad in law."

3. Adequacy and Reasonableness of the Conditions Imposed:
The appellant contended that the condition to furnish a bank guarantee of 15% of the value of the goods was excessive, especially since they were willing to pay the entire duty amounting to over 25 crores. They argued that the department's focus on the Country of Origin Certificate (COO) was irrelevant since they did not seek any duty benefit based on the COO. The tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that "there is no restriction under the Import Export Policy for importing Copper Cathodes from Iran." The tribunal also emphasized that the appellant's willingness to pay the entire duty should have been considered when imposing conditions for provisional release.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the conditions imposed in the provisional release order dated 06.04.2022 were "not justified and correct." It modified the conditions, directing the provisional release of the seized goods upon payment of customs duty, execution of a bond covering the full value of the seized goods, and furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 1 Crore. The appeal was allowed in these terms, balancing the interests of justice and safeguarding revenue.

Pronouncement:
The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 10.05.2022.

---