Court Orders Release of Seized Goods with Bank Guarantee under Customs Act, 1962 The court directed the provisional release of seized goods under the Customs Act, 1962 to the petitioner upon furnishing a bank guarantee based on a ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court Orders Release of Seized Goods with Bank Guarantee under Customs Act, 1962
The court directed the provisional release of seized goods under the Customs Act, 1962 to the petitioner upon furnishing a bank guarantee based on a specified valuation method and compliance with conditions set out in Annexure R-3. The court emphasized that goods cannot be detained indefinitely during proceedings, especially when more than 6 months have passed since seizure. The petitioner's contention regarding the stringent conditions for release was considered, and the court ordered the release of goods within a week of order receipt and bank guarantee submission, taking into account the local procurement aspect for determining the bank guarantee amount. An additional bank guarantee of Rs. One lac was required for seized finished goods in the factory.
Issues involved: Challenge of goods seizure under Customs Act, 1962 and seeking direction for release of seized goods.
The petitioner imported goods for home consumption and clearance was permitted by the proper officer u/s 47 of the Customs Act, 1962. A search was conducted at the petitioner's premises on the allegation of mis-declaration of imported goods' value. Raw material and finished goods were seized, and the petitioner was required to execute an entrustment-deed. Goods were not released pending inquiry.
Contention raised that prolonged detention prejudices petitioner's rights. Respondent stated seizure was due to undervaluation of goods. Court held that goods cannot be retained indefinitely during proceedings. More than 6 months had passed since seizure.
Respondent mentioned provisional release orders (Annexure R-3 and R-4) but petitioner had not complied with conditions. Petitioner argued conditions were too stringent compared to previous cases where bank guarantee was based on a different valuation method. Court directed provisional release upon furnishing bank guarantee based on specified valuation method and compliance with conditions in Annexure R-3.
Goods to be released within a week of order receipt and bank guarantee submission. Local procurement aspect to be considered for determining bank guarantee. Additional bank guarantee of Rs. One lac for seized finished goods in factory. Writ petition disposed accordingly.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
