Gold bars seized under Advance Authorisation Scheme cannot be provisionally released after final adjudication orders

The CESTAT Mumbai dismissed an appeal for provisional release of seized gold bars imported under Advance Authorisation Scheme exemption. The appellants had been issued show cause notices regarding the seized goods. The tribunal held that since the department had already adjudicated the show cause notices and passed final orders, the appeal for provisional release became infructuous. The court noted that Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 provides for seizure of goods liable to confiscation and mandates show cause notices within six months. CBIC instructions established time limits for adjudication. The appeal was dismissed as it could not be considered after final adjudication.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Provisional release of seized goods.
2. Adjudication of show cause notices.
3. Refund of IGST.
4. Registration of MEIS duty credit scrips.

Summary:

1. Provisional Release of Seized Goods:
The appellants sought unconditional release of seized goods without security, challenging the provisional release conditions set by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. The Tribunal examined the legal provisions under Sections 110 and 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, which allow for the seizure of goods suspected of being liable to confiscation and their provisional release on bond and security. The Tribunal noted that show cause notices (SCNs) were issued within the statutory period, and the goods were provisionally released as per the legal framework. However, as the SCNs were adjudicated during the appeal's pendency, the Tribunal determined that the appeal for provisional release had become infructuous.

2. Adjudication of Show Cause Notices:
The Tribunal acknowledged that the SCNs dated 01.07.2022 and 05.07.2022 were issued concerning the seized goods and other alleged violations under the Customs Act. The Commissioner of Customs-IV (Export) adjudicated these SCNs, issuing an Order-in-Original on 06.10.2023. Given this adjudication, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal concerning the provisional release of goods was rendered moot.

3. Refund of IGST:
The High Court directed that the appellants' claim for IGST refunds, which were outside the scope of the SCNs, should be decided by the concerned authorities independently. The Tribunal did not address this issue directly, as it was not within its immediate purview.

4. Registration of MEIS Duty Credit Scrips:
Similarly, the claim for the registration of MEIS duty credit scrips was to be decided by the relevant authorities, as directed by the High Court. The Tribunal did not consider this issue in its judgment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous due to the adjudication of the SCNs, which resolved the matter of the provisional release of the seized goods. The issues of IGST refund and MEIS duty credit scrip registration were left to be decided by the appropriate authorities as per the High Court's directions. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court on 19.12.2023.

---