2011 (7) TMI 477

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me infructuous, hence dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that on specific information, the DRI detained 13 containers of the appellants for examination and two containers of M/s Vipula Exports. The detained containers have been examined and during the course of examination, it was found that the appellants have mis-declared the value, description and weight of the goods. The said goods were seized for investigation under Customs Act, 1962. During the course of seizure, the appellants moved an application for provisional release of the impugned goods contained in 13 containers as heavy demurrage are being incurred by the appellants. The application for provisional release was considered by the Commissioner and allowed to be released ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elease of their goods contained in 41 consignments but they are not agree with those conditions also. Therefore, the impugned order be modified with the conditions as levied by Delhi High Court in the case of Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2011 (267) ELT 483 (Del.) 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed the contentions of the ld. Advocates and submitted that it is a case of mis-declaration of goods, value and quantity, therefore, the goods have been detained for examination. The revenue is to be secured, as the appellants are habitual offenders. Therefore there may be strict conditions be imposed for release of the goods and supported the Commissioner#s order for release of the goods. 6. Heard both sides. 7. A....