Customs authorities can impose bond conditions for provisional release of mis-declared export goods

CESTAT New Delhi upheld customs authorities' conditions for provisional release of seized export goods found to be mis-declared. The appellant falsely described goods as "Whey Flour Powder" to claim 10% FOB value benefit under MEIS, when they were actually "Maida" (not covered under the scheme). The appellant also over-valued the goods. The tribunal ruled that provisional release is not an absolute right and authorities can impose reasonable conditions including bond equivalent to goods' value plus appropriate security for redemption fine and penalty. The appellant's reliance on Circular 17/2009 was misplaced as it applied to different export promotion schemes. Appeal dismissed.

---

---

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]

---