TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Orders Provisional Release of Goods Under Customs Act with Bank Guarantee</h1> <h3>Kunjal Synergies Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Port) & Ors.</h3> The Court directed the respondent authority to release the goods provisionally under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, upon the petitioner providing ... Seeking provisional release of seized goods - prohibited goods - Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Even a partial prohibition will not prevent the release of the goods provisionally and there cannot be any bar in releasing the goods if not prohibited in terms of any circular. Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authority concerned to release the goods in question upon furnishing of bank guarantee of Rs.56 lakhs which was determined by the respondent department as a redemption fine and if such bank guarantee is furnished to the respondent authority concerned, the goods in question shall be released within 48 hours from the date of furnishing of such bank guarantee. Issues:Release of goods provisionally under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 based on conflicting circulars and orders.Analysis:The petitioner sought the release of goods provisionally under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, relying on an order of the Appellate Authority and a Division Bench decision from 2005. The respondent Customs authority opposed, citing a circular from 2017. The Court noted that the Appellate Authority's order had not been stayed or set aside by a higher forum, making it legally valid. Additionally, the respondent's reliance on the 2017 circular was deemed inapplicable as it pertained to prohibited goods, not the restricted goods in question.The Court highlighted that the 2017 circular did not supersede the 2004 circular, which allowed for provisional clearance of disputed goods to prevent congestion at ports. The Division Bench precedent emphasized that even partial prohibition does not bar provisional release. The petitioner also argued that the goods were perishable spirits, necessitating timely release to prevent spoilage.Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authority to release the goods upon the petitioner providing a bank guarantee of Rs.56 lakhs, determined as a redemption fine. The goods were to be released within 48 hours of furnishing the guarantee, subject to departmental satisfaction and statutory compliance. The Court's decision was based on the legal validity of the Appellate Authority's order, the relevance of the 2004 circular, and the perishable nature of the goods, ensuring a balanced approach to the conflicting circulars and orders involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
