TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 883
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-2012 and directing the respondents to release the imported goods comprising of flat bed/circular knitting machines and declaring the action of the respondent authorities for withholding the imported goods being illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and violative of Articles 14 & 19(1)(g) with further alternative relief of fixing the amount of demmurage/detention charges and compensation for delay in releasing the goods or such order or direction which this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that during the period from July, 2011 to December, 2011, it had imported 6 consignments of old & used flat bed/circular knitting machines with standard accessories for which there are entries at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner and the IEC of the petitioner was put under alert by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana and all the machines imported from 28-6-2011 to 23-9-2011 were detained vide panchnama of the said date. The machines imported by the importer vide different bills of entries were subject to examination by the officers of DRI and it was found that the same were declared by the petitioner and the Department took the opinion of Chartered Engineer, Varun Chandok and Rajesh Jhon who submitted their reports to the DRI. Out of the total 26 machines imported by the petitioner, 3 machines along with accessories had been placed under seizure and out of the total 88 detained machines, 10 machines were released vide letter dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereas 23 machines had been released to the petitioner after provisional assessment. The respondents had issued no objection certificates for provisional release under Section 110A of the Act in respect of the 3 machines and 2 spares seized at the Port as well as 55 machines seized in the petitioner's godown and the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the Act which had not been availed and neither the petitioner represented against any of the seizure or detention of the goods to the respondents and provisional release had been ordered by the Joint Commissioner. It was pleaded that the petitioner had himself deposited a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- vide letter dated 14-9-2011 towards differential duties against 5 machines of Shima Seiki brand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iv) On furnishing a declaration in the form of an affidavit that you will not challenge the identity of the goods during the course of adjudication or prosecution proceedings if any. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon various decisions wherein such conditions imposed by the respondents had been quashed. Reference was made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Amit Enterprises v. Union of India - 2011 (269) E.L.T. 314 (P&H). The relevant observations of the Division Bench reads as under : 11. We find merit in the contention that requirement of giving a declaration that the petitioner will not challenge the value of the goods, is unreasonable and arbitrary. The petitioner cannot be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. Union of India - 2001 (269) E.L.T. 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) E.L.T. 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 d....