https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205451 The Division Bench clarified that detaining goods after the statutory period is legal if provisional release is allowed against a bond and bank guarantee. The judgment emphasized compliance with statutory requirements under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, including the necessity of a provisional order and notice for confiscation. The court upheld the validity of the bank guarantee condition due to serious fraud allegations against the Petitioner, leading to the dismissal of the Petition seeking relief under guidelines for expeditious assessment and release. The Petitioner's fraudulent activities, including unauthorized sale of duty-free materials and misdeclaration of imports, justified the denial of relief and dismissal of the case. The Court directed consideration of a partial bank guarantee for prorata release of goods by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat. en-us Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205451 The Division Bench clarified that detaining goods after the statutory period is legal if provisional release is allowed against a bond and bank guarantee. The judgment emphasized compliance with statutory requirements under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, including the necessity of a provisional order and notice for confiscation. The court upheld the validity of the bank guarantee condition due to serious fraud allegations against the Petitioner, leading to the dismissal of the Petition seeking relief under guidelines for expeditious assessment and release. The Petitioner's fraudulent activities, including unauthorized sale of duty-free materials and misdeclaration of imports, justified the denial of relief and dismissal of the case. The Court directed consideration of a partial bank guarantee for prorata release of goods by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205451