2016 (1) TMI 515

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....challenging the impugned proceedings of the respondents in Bill of Entry No.INMAA4 9934208, dated 17.7.2015 and to quash the same as illegal in so far as it relates to the demand of 100% Bank Guarantee towards the customs duty of 16% leviable in the normal course of import and consequently direct the respondents to allow the clearance of the goods by accepting the Special Additional Customs Duty of 1% as per the Malasiya-India Comprehensive Economic Co-operation Agreement. 3.1 The petitioner company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956, on the file of the Registrar of Companies, Chennai and converted into a Private Limited Company from a Proprietary concern in the year 2011. The petitioner company also possesses Import Export Code....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with all the statutory formalities required to import the specified goods viz., unbranded gold jewellery from Malaysia under the said MICECA and to avail the duty concessions granted under the same. But, till date, the respondents have not assessed the goods. 3.3. It is claimed by the petitioner that prior to consignment, the respondents assessed the goods that were imported by the petitioner company and cleared the same under section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the importer has paid appropriate import duty assessed i.e. 1% Special Additional Customs Duty as per the said MICECA. Apart from the same, so far as the exemption of the customs duty of 16% is concerned, the respondent authority is insisting for 20% of Bank Guarantee for ver....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ining, a different stand has been taken by the respondent. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondents cannot take such a stand, by relying the web-portal communication for insisting 100% bank guarantee, which violates the agreement entered between India and Malaysia, which is the basis for the transaction. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied judgments reported in 2011 (269) ELT 145 (SC) (Banzal Wire Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P.), 2011(265) E.L.T.17 (S.C.) [Commissioner of Customs v. Sayed Ali] and an unreported case made in W.P.No.17052 (W) of 2015, dated 4.8.2015 [M/s.N.D.Diamond & Anr. v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport) & Anr.] of the Calcutta High Court and prayed for appropriate....