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>Customs authorities can impose bond conditions for provisional release of mis-declared export goods</h1> <h3>M/s. C.L. International Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi</h3> M/s. C.L. International Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Provisional release of seized export goods.2. Conditions imposed for provisional release, specifically the quantum of bond and bank guarantee.3. Mis-declaration of goods and eligibility for MEIS benefit.4. Applicability of CBEC Circulars and relevant legal provisions.Summary:Provisional Release of Seized Export Goods:The appellant challenged the Order-in-Appeal upholding the conditions for the provisional release of seized export goods classified as 'Whey Flour (Powder)' under CTH 04041020, claiming MEIS benefits. The goods were seized after testing revealed them to be 'Maida' (Wheat Flour), which did not qualify for MEIS benefits.Conditions Imposed for Provisional Release:The appellant contested the conditions for provisional release, specifically the requirement to submit a seizure bond equivalent to the declared FOB value (Rs.6,89,41,504/-) and a bank guarantee of Rs.70,00,000/-. The appellant argued that as a '˜Star Export House,' they were exempt from such guarantees per FTP 2014-2019 and Circular No.17/2009-CUS.Mis-declaration of Goods and Eligibility for MEIS Benefit:The Commissioner of Customs upheld the conditions, stating that the goods were mis-declared to avail MEIS benefits. The goods were found to be 'Maida' instead of 'Whey Flour Powder,' making them ineligible for MEIS benefits. The Commissioner justified the bond and bank guarantee based on the probable redemption fine and penalties under Sections 114 (iii) and 114 (AA) of the Customs Act, 1962.Applicability of CBEC Circulars and Relevant Legal Provisions:The Tribunal referred to CBEC Circular No.01/2011-CUS, which mandates a bond equivalent to the value of goods and appropriate security for provisional release in cases of mis-declaration. The Tribunal also cited relevant case law, emphasizing that provisional release is not an absolute right and must comply with prescribed conditions to safeguard against potential penalties and fines.Conclusion:The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order and upheld the conditions imposed for the provisional release of the seized goods. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the requirement for a bond and bank guarantee as justified and in accordance with the law.[Order pronounced on 05.12.2023]
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
