TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icorin. In all, the Petitioner had filed 16 bills of entry in respect of the imported goods. 3. There is no dispute that in respect of 4 bills of entry imported through Kolkatta port, the goods have been cleared on a provisional assessment. The Petitioner has furnished bank guarantees and has cleared those goods. Insofar as the balance 12 bills of entry are concerned, one of them relates to Tuticorin, one to Kolkatta and the remaining 10 to Mumbai. The Petitioner seeks the release of the goods covered by these bills of entry on a provisional assessment basis, since the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has some objection with regard to valuation of these goods. 4. It is contended by learned Central Government Standing Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....valuation of imported goods, the proper officer under the Customs Act, 1962 may release those goods on an importer/exporter executing a proper bond and depositing with the proper officer an amount not exceeding 20% of the difference in duty as claimed by the importer/exporter and the provisional duty as assessed by the proper officer. 7. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the amount that the Petitioner would be required to deposit would be 20% of the differential duty provisionally determined as above. Since the Petitioner has already paid duty on the value of US$ 870/PMT, it would now be required to pay 20% of the differential duty that is 20% of the duty calculated at the provisional value of US$ 1640/PMT and duty paid at the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods during the course of adjudication or prosecution should be given. This issues with the approval of Additional Director General, D.R.I., D.Z.U., New Delhi. (M.S. Meena) Senior Intelligence Officer" 9. A perusal of clause 1 of the letter shows that the Respondent is demanding the entire differential duty to be deposited by the Petitioner instead of 20% thereof as postulated by the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 1963. In addition thereto, the Respondent is also demanding execution of an indemnity bond equivalent to the entire seizure value of the goods and a Bank Guarantee to the extent of Rs. 48,61,571/-, which is 10% of the seizure value of the goods. According to the Petitioner, this is clearly contrary to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. 12. Under the circumstances, we have to go by the principles laid down by the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 1963. We, therefore, direct the Respondent to provisionally clear the goods forming the subject matter of 12 bills of entry that have been mentioned in the petition upon the Petitioner depositing an amount equivalent to 20% of the difference in the provisional duty as sought to be assessed by the Respondent and on the basis of the value prima facie determined by the Respondent, that is US$ 1640/PMT and the value declared by the Petitioner, that is between US$ 870/PMT and US$ 1000/PMT. The Petitioner will, of course, be also obliged to execute a bond to pay the balance of the differential duty as and when....