TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each as bank guarantee to cover the personal penalty leviable under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for brevity, the 'Act'), bank guarantees of Rs. 14,48,093/- to cover redemption fine in the case of petitioner No.1 and for Rs. 13,86,906/- in the case of petitioner No.2; solvency certificate and undertaking to be given that identity and quantity of the impounded goods would not be disputed. 3. The pleaded case of the petitioner-Companies are that they are reputed concerns engaged in the manufacture and export of textile garments namely Knitted Gents Shirts and Knitted Track Suits falling under Chapter Heading 6105 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The petitioners are exporting the said goods to various countries and have to file bills in terms of provision of Section 50 of the Act for permission of clearance and loading of goods for export purpose after having satisfied that the goods entered for export are not prohibited goods. The Government has declared different incentive schemes like Advance Licence Scheme, Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme, Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme, Duty Drawback Scheme. In the ordinary course of business, the petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vided by the DRI. In these circumstances, I have no other option but to determine the amount of Bond and Bank Guarantee on pro-rata basis vis-a-vis M/s Century Knitters India Ltd. Hence, in view of the Board Circular 1/2011 dated 04.01.2011, I allow provisional release of the goods on the following terms and conditions to M/s Rajesh Hosiery Mills:- market enquiry:- 1. on execution of Bond equivalent to the declared FOB value of the goods covered under the said 5 shipping bills i.e. Rs.2,38,22,417/- 2. On furnishing of Bank Guarantee to the tune of the amount of excess drawback attempted to be availed i.e. Rs.16,63,007/- to cover the personal penalty leviable under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as Bank Guarantee to cover leviable penalty under Section 114(AA) of the CA, 1962 3. on furnishing of Bank Guarantee to the tune of 25% of the determined FOB value i.e. Rs.13,86,906/- to cover the redemption fine 4. on submission of solvency certificate 5. on furnishing an undertaking that the identity and the quantity of the impugned goods will not be disputed and 6. on drawal of representative sample in the presence of DRI officers, if requi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Commissioner of Customs. The Director, Sh.Rajesh Dhanda had been called upon by issuance of show cause notice dated 25.10.2012 as to why the goods should not be re-assessed. 6. Similarly, in the reply filed by respondent No.2, it had been alleged that 8 writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners and their associates to derail the investigation and it was pleaded that fraud was being played by the petitioners. The power of the Court to order disposal of the goods was challenged on the ground that it was not the case where the goods were subject to speedy and natural decay. The respondents had a statutory duty to perform and to conclude the investigation. The huge liability is likely to be assessed against the petitioner. It was stated that the petitioner had an alternative remedy and the investigation of the criminal offence was a sensitive issue and investigation had to be concluded. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case stands covered by judgments relied upon whereas the stand of the respondents is that in view of the fact that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, it should avail the same and further the matter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk guarantee and declaration as a condition for release of goods was set aside by this Court with the under-noted observations: "7. Similar matter has been earlier dealt with by this Court on 9.5.2011 in CWP No.6732 of 2011 Amit Enterprises v. Union of India 2001(269) ELT 314 and it was held that prima facie there was violation of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of customs v. Sayed Ali 2011( 265) ELT 17, laying down that seizure can be effected only by an officer specifically authorized to act as such. In the present case, no such authority has been produced by the officer effecting seizure. It has also been held that imposition of a condition to the effect that the value of goods will not be challenged at any stage, is abuse of power, as no person can be debarred from asserting its case. It has been further held that requirement of furnishing bank guarantee equal to 25% of the full market value of the goods could not be justified on a simple dispute of classification and valuation. It has also been held that gross delay in taking decision after seizure without any valid justification was arbitrary. Mere dispute of classification or valuation could not justif....