Tribunal Revises Provisional Release Conditions for Seized Goods, Emphasizes Proportionality and Reasonableness

The Tribunal set aside the order requiring a bank guarantee of 15% of the value of seized goods for provisional release. Instead, the appellant was directed to execute a bond for the full value of the goods and furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 1 crore. This decision aimed at balancing the appellant's interests with revenue protection, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness in imposing conditions for provisional release. The Tribunal highlighted that arbitrary and excessive requirements should not obstruct the release of goods, especially when the appellant was willing to fulfill duty obligations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the requirement for the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee of 15% of the value of seized goods for provisional release.
2. Authority and jurisdiction of customs officials to review and modify provisional release orders.
3. Validity and enforceability of the provisional release conditions under the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Requirement for Bank Guarantee:
The appellant challenged the condition to provide a bank guarantee of 15% of the value of the seized goods, arguing it was excessive and arbitrary. The appellant cited several precedents, including *T.G. Enterprise vs. Union of India* and *Veer Impex vs. Union of India*, where courts had set aside similar conditions or modified them to be less onerous. The appellant contended that since they were willing to pay the entire duty amount without claiming any benefit under any Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the additional requirement of a bank guarantee was unnecessary and contrary to established legal principles. The Tribunal agreed, noting that there was no evidence of undervaluation or misclassification of the goods, and the condition to provide a bank guarantee of 15% of the value of the goods was excessive.

2. Authority and Jurisdiction of Customs Officials:
The appellant argued that once the provisional release order was issued on 04.02.2022, the customs officials became functus officio and had no jurisdiction to review or alter the order. The Tribunal supported this view, citing the decision in *Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs. Union of India*, which held that an adjudicating authority could not review its own order unless explicitly empowered by law. The Tribunal found that the withdrawal of the provisional release order by the Additional Commissioner of Customs was without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of law.

3. Validity and Enforceability of Provisional Release Conditions:
The Tribunal examined whether the conditions for provisional release imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) were justified. It noted that the initial provisional release order required a bank guarantee of 15% of the duty payable, which was later changed to 15% of the value of the goods without any substantial reasoning. The Tribunal referred to the decision in *Gaurav Pharma Limited*, which established that orders under Section 110A of the Customs Act are quasi-judicial and appealable. The Tribunal concluded that the revised conditions were not only excessive but also lacked legal justification, especially when the appellant was willing to pay the full duty amount.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent it required a bank guarantee of 15% of the value of the goods. Instead, it directed the appellant to execute a bond for the full value of the goods and furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 1 crore. This decision was based on the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, ensuring that the appellant's interests were balanced with the need to protect revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisional release of goods should not be hindered by arbitrary and excessive conditions, especially when the appellant was willing to comply with the duty requirements.

---