Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the seized goods were liable to be released for re-export after the duty and penalties imposed under the adjudication and appellate orders had been deposited, notwithstanding the pendency of the Revenue's appeal and the subsequent demand notice.
Analysis: The petitioner had already deposited the customs duty and the penalties as modified by the appellate order. The Court noted that the respondent revenue did not dispute the original adjudication, the appellate modification, or the fact of deposit. It also recorded that although the Revenue had filed an appeal before the Tribunal, no stay order or interim protection had been shown. In these circumstances, the Court held that there was no embargo on release of the goods, particularly as the revenue interest stood secured by payment. The later demand notice was not treated as an impediment to release in the present proceedings.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to release of the goods for re-export upon confirmation of deposit of Rs. 78,00,000, and the respondent was directed to release the goods within 10 days.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the duty and penalty determined under the operative customs orders have been duly deposited and no stay of the appellate order exists, the customs authorities cannot withhold release of the goods, including for re-export, merely because a further appeal is pending.