Provisional release of Ethanol Absolute challenged where department sought bank guarantee; consistency and arbitrariness addressed, relief granted after bond furnished

Provisional release of imported Ethanol Absolute was challenged where the administrative authority sought a bank guarantee despite an earlier adjudication permitting release on similar terms. The note emphasises that imposition of different conditions for identical imports constitutes arbitrary administrative action and conflicts with prior orders; consistency in enforcement is required. Consequentially, clearance should be permitted where the importer has furnished the stipulated bond, and imposing an additional bank guarantee is not warranted under the circumstances described.

---

---

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the clearance of Ethanol Absolute covered under two Bills of Entry for Ex-Bond bearing Nos. 9165548 and 9165550 both dated 11.12.2023 filed by the Petitioner for home consumption. The key issues revolve around the classification of the goods, provisional release, and the terms set by the Respondents.

Classification and Provisional Release:
The Petitioner approached the Court seeking clearance of Ethanol Absolute covered under two Bills of Entry. The Court noted that the Petitioner had been importing such materials for many decades and had paid customs duty at the accepted classification of 98.02. The Court allowed provisional release of the goods under the bill of entry in question on execution of a bond, emphasizing the Petitioner's history as a regular importer and the absence of justifications for the Respondents to refuse provisional release. The Court highlighted that the goods were not prohibited, and the dispute mainly concerned classification, which had been permitted for clearance for many years. The Court ordered the Respondents to release the goods within two weeks from the execution of the bond.

Challenges and Subsequent Proceedings:
Despite the Court's orders, the release of goods faced challenges from State Excise Officials, prompting the Petitioner to file further proceedings. The Court observed that the officials had acted in a high-handed manner, possibly influenced by private parties competing with the Petitioner. The Court directed the State Excise Department to release the goods and conduct an inquiry against the officials involved. Subsequently, the Petitioner faced similar issues in the present proceedings, where the Respondents sought different terms for provisional release, including a bank guarantee. The Court emphasized that its previous orders were binding on the Respondents, and applying different parameters for similar imports would be arbitrary and contrary to the earlier proceedings. The Court directed the Respondents to permit clearance of the goods under the two Bills of Entry filed by the Petitioner for home consumption, as the Petitioner had already furnished a bond, ordering the release within one week.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Court granted the relief sought by the Petitioner, directing the Respondents to permit clearance of the Ethanol Absolute covered under the specified Bills of Entry. The Court's decision was based on the consistency of classification, the Petitioner's compliance with previous orders, and the absence of justification for imposing additional terms for provisional release. The Petition was disposed of in favor of the Petitioner without any costs.

---