TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 485
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ober 2015 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs ("CBEC") stating inter alia that the gold jewellery imported by the members of the said Association from Indonesia do not satisfy the criteria and should be denied the benefit of preferential custom duty. The said Circular directed the Assessing Authority to disregard certificates issued by the statutory authorities in Indonesia and the confirmation given by the government- owned companies in Indonesia. This Court also quashed a consequential order dated 20th January 2016 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Respondent No. 2 herein) requiring importers of gold jewellery from Indonesia to furnish inter alia a bank guarantee ("BG") for 100% of the duty differential for provisional clearance of the goods. Thirdly, the Court also quashed a the letter dated 22nd January 2016 issued by Respondent No. 2, by which M/s. J B Overseas was asked to furnish a BG for 100% of the duty differential involved for the clearance of gold jewellery in terms of the directions given by the CBEC in its Circular dated 20th January 2016. 3. On the very next day after the above judgment was pronounced, i.e., 27th April 2016, the Petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....signments. The Petitioner contended that since this Court had in its judgment pronounced on the genuineness of the Country of Origin ("COO") Certificates, the benefit of exemption could not be denied to it. 7. Pursuant to the Court's order dated 1st June 2016, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs Group-III, IV & VI passed the following order of provisional release of the goods in question on 8th June 2016: "With regard to above subject, it is informed that as ordered by Hon"ble high Court dated 1st June 2016 your Bills of Entry No. 3970620 dated 20th January 2016 and 4138435 dated 3rd February 2016 has been assessed provisionally on 7th June 2016 without having any influence of any circular, directions with PD Bond of an amount equal to the difference between the duty that may be finally assessed or; reassessed, and provisional duty of the value of the goods and getting deposit 20% of provisional duty in terms of Regulation 2 of Customs (PDA) Regulations, 2011 and Bank Guarantee of 50% of differential duty in terms of Regulation 4 of Customs (PDA) Regulations, 2011 till the finalization of the matter. As there is no option in EDI System to deposit cash in terms of Regulation 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the said Act, is not able to verify the self-assessment or make re-assessment of the duty on the imported goods or the export goods, as the case may be, he shall make an estimate of the duty to be levied (hereinafter referred to as the provisional duty). (2) If the importer or the exporter, as the case may be, executes a bond in an amount equal to the difference between the duty that may be finally assessed or reassessed and the provisional duty and deposits with the proper officer such sum not exceeding twenty per cent of the provisional duty, as the proper officer may direct, the proper officer may assess the duty on the goods provisionally at an amount equal to the provisional duty. ... 4. Surety or security of the bond. - The proper officer may require that the bond to be executed under these regulations may be with such surety or security, or both, as he deems fit." 13. As far as Regulation 2 (2) is concerned, it only talks of the importer having to execute a bond for an amount "equal to the difference between the duty that may be finally assessed and re-assessed and the provisional duty" and deposit such sum not exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efit of exemption as far as payment of customs duty was concerned. It is, therefore, submitted that the Petitioner is in fact entitled to unconditional release. By way of a demurer, Mr Gulati submits that the Petitioner is willing to provide the bond and deposit in terms of Regulation 2 (2) of the CPDA Regulations. However, Mr. Gulati contends that there is no justification for requiring the Petitioner to also make a further deposit or furnish a BG for 50% of the provisional duty as a condition for provisional release of the goods in question. 15. In the first place, it requires to be noted that the order/communication dated 8th June 2016 does not give the reasons for requiring the Petitioner to deposit or to furnish a BG for 50% of the provisional duty for release of the goods pending finalization of the assessment. 16. Mr. Narula sought to suggest that although the order dated 8th June 2016 does not set out the reasons, the notings on the file, prepared by the same officer who passed the above order, state that on account of the financial condition of the Petitioner it is necessary to seek as security 50% of the provisional duty. 17. The Court is unable to appreciate the above....