https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765733 The HC addressed whether the Customs Department's conditions for the provisional release of seized goods were excessively onerous and whether the petitioner needed to exhaust appellate remedies before seeking writ jurisdiction. The Court reduced the Bank Guarantee requirement from 130% to 30% of the differential duty, considering the petitioner's status as a regular importer and the prolonged seizure. It also decided to address the petitioner's grievance directly through writ jurisdiction due to the specific circumstances, thus facilitating the timely release of goods. The writ petition was disposed of with these terms. en-us Thu, 06 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Feb 2025 09:12:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765733 The HC addressed whether the Customs Department's conditions for the provisional release of seized goods were excessively onerous and whether the petitioner needed to exhaust appellate remedies before seeking writ jurisdiction. The Court reduced the Bank Guarantee requirement from 130% to 30% of the differential duty, considering the petitioner's status as a regular importer and the prolonged seizure. It also decided to address the petitioner's grievance directly through writ jurisdiction due to the specific circumstances, thus facilitating the timely release of goods. The writ petition was disposed of with these terms. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 06 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765733