TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 712
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious consumer goods in twelve containers out of which four reached at ICD, Dhannad and the remaining eight are at gateway port of Nava Sheva. All these imports had been made from Hong Kong. The Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence, on receipt of information that various items of consumer goods which are restricted items for import and can be imported only against specific licence issued by DGFT are being imported by grossly under-declaring their assessable value by some unscruptous importers in fictitious name, started inquiries in respect of the above-mentioned imports. On the basis of the IEC Code Nos. the addresses and other details of the importers were ascertained but on inquiries, the same were found to be fictitious and non-ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of the goods seized by DRI to Shri Manjit Singh on the ground that M/s. KAM, M/s. Khyati and M/s. KM International are non-existent and the respondent, Shri Manjit Singh is not a bona fide owner of the goods. 1.2 Subsequently, after about 2 weeks, the same Commissioner vide his order dated 5-11-2013 ordered - (a) provisional release of the goods except those which are prohibited or restricted goods and which are otherwise freely importable as per ITC, on payment of applicable duties on the value assessed and 25% of the duty as bank guarantee or Revenue deposit for securing redemption fine or personal penalty and on furnishing bond for full value of restricted goods so released; and (b) &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he provisions of law and absolutely incorrect, the Committee directed him to file an appeal to the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 129D(4). In terms of the Committee's order dated 14-11-2013, this appeal has been filed along with the stay application. 2. Heard both the sides. Though this matter is listed today for hearing of only the stay application, after hearing the stay application, the Bench was of the view that since only a short issue regarding legality of the order of the provisional release of the goods to the respondent passed by the Commissioner is involved, the matter can be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly, with the consent of both the sides, the matter was heard for final disposal. 3. Shri S.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5-11-2013, ordering provisional release of the imported goods except those in prohibited category, to the respondent, subject to payment of duty and furnishing of bank guarantee and bond as prescribed in the order, is contrary to the provisions of the law, that merely on the basis of an affidavit filed by the respondent, Shri Manjit Singh, he could not be treated bona fide owner of the goods, that since the value of the goods is grossly under-declared and the importers are fictitious and non-existent, provisional release of the goods on payment of duty on the declared value and furnishing of bank guarantee for 25% of the value of the goods to the respondent would cause a irreparable damage to the Revenue, that out of 12 containers, 8 contai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e sides and perused the records. 8. The provisional release of the goods has been ordered by the Commissioner under Section 110A of the Act, which is reproduced below :- "release of goods, documents and things seized pending adjudication. - Any goods, documents or things seized under Section 110, may, pending the order of the adjudicating authority, be released to the owner on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the adjudicating authority may require." 9. From perusal of Section 110A, it is clear that - (a) provisional release of the goods can be made only to the owner of the goods; and (b) provisional release has to be made on taking a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s. Dhruv Enterprises has been ordered to the respondent, Shri Manjit Singh in the event of production of the necessary affidavits/authorization. In our view, this order of the Commissioner is perverse, as is mentioned above, just on the basis of the affidavits filed by a person in respect of whom the Commissioner had earlier held that he is not a bona fide owner, he does not become the bona fide owner. Moreover the Commissioner's order regarding provisional release of the goods imported by M/s. Aashavi Enterprises and M/s. Dhruv Enterprises to Shri Manjit Singh in the event of production of the necessary affidavits/authorization is a strange order as when the importers are found to be fictitious and non-existent, it is not understood as t....