TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 988
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst (1) the interim order dated 2.12.2015 passed by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade whereby: (i) Redemption issued to the petitioner on 30.4.2015 stands withdrawn. (ii) The firm is put under DEL (Denied Entity List). (iiI)The firm is directed to apply a fresh redemption request. (2) The letter dated 9.2.2016 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, EPCG Section, JNCH, informing the petitioner that the Commissioner of Customs, NS-IV, JNCH has provisionally released the seized goods to the party covered under Bills of Entry No. (i)8288223 dated 22.10.2012 and (ii)8288712 dated 22.10.2012 (iii)8270493 dated 19.10.2012 imported vide EPCG Authorization No.2430001677 dated 03.07.2012, subject to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilment of the export obligation, and hence, as on date, the machines in question are required to be released at the earliest subject to such terms and conditions, as may be stipulated by this court. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD, New Delhi, 2011 (267) E.L.T. 483 (Del), wherein the court had held that in the absence of any definite parameters having been laid down for the exercise of power under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 the only option that would be available to the court would be to fall back on the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 1963. The court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as security, etc., subject to which the goods seized under section 110 may be released to the owner. It was submitted that in the present case, the Commissioner of Customs has exercised discretion and has permitted provisional release of the goods in favour of the petitioner subject to the conditions stipulated in the provisional release order and hence, no interference is warranted by this court. It was pointed out that the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD, New Delhi (supra) was carried before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD, New Delhi v. Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd., 2011 (269) ELT A-146, has modif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme. On a perusal of the order of provisional release, it is apparent that three conditions have been imposed for the purpose of provisional release of the goods. Firstly, the petitioner is required to furnish of a bond for the full value of the goods, to which the petitioner has no objection. Secondly, the petitioner is required to furnish a bank guarantee for the full duty amount, which is the main bone of contention. Thirdly, the petitioner is required to furnish a bank guarantee equal to 25% of duty amount. This condition is in the nature of penalty, and hence, at this stage, the question of furnishing a bank guarantee towards penalty would not arise. 6. Under the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the contentions of ....