AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39; order was issued under Section 47 of the Customs Act. 2. The petitioner filed the said Bill of Entry for clearance of 52.78MTS of goods declared as Defective MS CR Sheet Cuttings and claimed the benefit of Notification No.46 of 2011-Customs. Under the said Notification, the basic customs duty is NIL. Based on intelligence, the consignment was detained after 'Out of Charge' order was given on 09.07.2014. The respondent would state that during the course of investigation, the petitioner did not submit the copy of the Asian India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA) Certificate of Origin for any of their consignments and as per the notification, four copies of the certificate have to be furnished of which the Triplicate copy could be re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in an erroneous manner. Further, it is stated that as of now, the petitioner has claimed the benefit of the said notification for 44 consignments including the subject consignment and the duty foregone on the subject consignment is Rs. 2,08,358/-. On the above background, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition seeking for permission to effect clearance of the goods, which have been now detained. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after reiterating the factual averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition submitted that the respondents ought to have taken into consideration that the goods imported are not prohibited goods and there cannot be any impediment for the respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs, there are four copies of the AIFTA certificate, out of which the Triplicate copy is petitioner's copy and they had stated that for each consignment, the petitioner had received only one original AIFTA certificate of origin and also stated that the petitioner has submitted the same at the time of examination and that the petitioner did not receive the Triplicate (Petitioner's) copy of the AIFTA certificate of origin and also stated that the petitioner was not having even a photocopy of the said AIFTA certificates of origin. The petitioner also stated that the petitioner has received the Original copy of the AIFTA certificate of origin through a broker and not directly from the supplier. Thus, the petitioner had not submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the learned counsel prayed for rejecting the relief sought for by the petitioner for release of the goods. 5. The short issue which falls for consideration is as to whether the goods in question have to be retained by the respondents or as to whether the respondents should be directed to provisionally release the goods pending further action by them. The description of goods in the Bill of Lading, was given as Electro Galvanized Sheets . While the petitioner in the Bill of Entry declared the goods as Defective M.S.C.R., Sheet Cuttings . On samples being drawn and examined by the Testing Agency, it was certified that the consignment was Electro Galvanized Low Carbon CR Steel Sheets. From the above facts, it prima facie appears to be a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oper form with such security and conditions, as the Commissioner may require. The power under Section 110-A of the Act has not been exercised by the respondents, though the petitioner made a request in writing by representation dated 18.08.2014, which necessitated the petitioner to approach this Court. 6. The relevant consideration while exercising power under Section 110-A would be to ensure that whether if the goods, which have been seized are provisionally released, would it any manner hamper the investigation/adjudication. Whether it would affect the interest of the revenue for recovering the duty and penalty which may be imposed on conclusion of the adjudication proceedings. The respondents in the instant case would state that apart....