Tribunal Reduces Bank Guarantee for Provisional Release of Seized Areca Nuts Amid SEZ Diversion Suspicions.

The Tribunal modified the order of the Commissioner Customs, Kandla, regarding the provisional release of seized dried Areca Nuts. While acknowledging the suspicion of diversion from SEZ, the Tribunal found that the appellant procured the goods from domestic suppliers with proper documentation and tax compliance. It deemed the bank guarantee amount excessive and reduced it, allowing provisional release on a reduced bond amount. The appeal was disposed of with the modification of the impugned order, pending a detailed investigation to confirm the goods' origin.

---

---

Issues:
Provisional release of seized goods with conditions of bond and bank guarantee under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against an order-in-original issued by the Deputy Commissioner Customs, Kandla, granting provisional release of seized goods with conditions of a bond and bank guarantee. The order was issued in compliance with the Hon'ble Delhi High Court order in a writ petition. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the seized goods, dried Areca Nuts, were suspected to be imported without duty payment. The investigation revealed discrepancies in the documentation provided by the appellant regarding the source of goods. The DRI suspected that the goods were part of a consignment cleared without duty payment under the guise of export. The Commissioner Customs, Kandla, granted provisional release with conditions of a bond and bank guarantee, leading to the appellant's appeal.

The appellant, represented by Ms. Priyanka Goel, argued that the seized goods were lawfully acquired from the domestic market and not subject to Customs Act provisions. She contended that the department lacked corroborative evidence for the allegations and failed to address the documents submitted by the appellant. The appellant maintained that even if there was diversion, they acted in good faith by procuring goods from legitimate suppliers and discharging GST liabilities. The appellant also challenged the valuation method used for determining the bond and bank guarantee amounts, asserting that the Customs Act sections invoked were inapplicable to locally procured goods intended for domestic sale.

On the other hand, Shri R. K. Agrawal, representing the Revenue, supported the Commissioner's decision for provisional release based on the DRI's investigation findings of possible diversion from SEZ. He argued that the conditions of bond and bank guarantee were justified.

After considering both sides, the Tribunal found that while there was suspicion of diversion from SEZ, the appellant had procured the goods from domestic suppliers with proper documentation and tax compliance. The Tribunal noted that detailed investigation was pending to confirm the goods' origin conclusively. Thus, the Tribunal deemed the bank guarantee amount excessive and reduced it, allowing provisional release on a reduced bond amount. The impugned order was modified accordingly, disposing of the appeal.

---