TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of petitioner No.2 apart from another 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng bills has been purged and the same have also not been provided 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 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovided that the provisional release would be subject to the conditions imposed 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(274) E.L.T. 6 (P & H) wherein also, similar conditions imposed regarding furnishing of bank 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 val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the revenue pertain to cases of pre-deposit and therefore, would not help the respondents. 12. Furthermore, the Managing Director and his wife were required to furnish an undertaking in CWP No.10750 of 2012 regarding a plot situated at village Baranhara, near Goudham, Ludhiana having approximate value of Rs. 3 crores not to alienate the same for a period of one year so that the respondents could conclude all proceedings in respect of ongoing investigation. The relevant operative portion of the order dated 14.02.2013 reads as under: "14. In view of the above, while disposing of this petition, we direct the revenue to retain an amount of Rs. 2 Crores to safeguard its interest for being adjusted against any liability that might be created on the basis of investigations and/or show cause notice issued to the petitioners and return the balance amount of Rs. 8 Crores within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Needless to say that in case the liability on the basis of the investigations and/or show cause notice issued to the petitioners is less than the amount retained, the respondent shall r....