TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as follows: "1.You are permitted to Provisionally Release the Seized goods on execution of PD Bond for 100% value of goods. 2.The Bond shall be supported by a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 49,48,680/- (Rupees Forty nine lakhs forty eight thousand six hundred and eighty only). The Bank guarantee shall contain automatic renewal clause in order to keep it alive till the finalization of the case." The petitioner being aggrieved by the second condition imposed via the impugned order has approached this Court by way of this instant writ petition. 2.Inorder to adjudicate upon the writ petition, the following broad facts need to be noticed: The petitioner claims to be engaged in the business of import and distribution of news pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... slit Newsprint reels) weighing 169.515 Mts valued at Rs. 64,57,165/- should not be confiscated under section 111(d) and section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalty should not be imposed upon M/s Poddar Global Ltd. under section 112(a) and section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the contravention as explained in the foregoing paras. Penalty should not be imposed upon Sh. Sunil Kumar Poddar, Director of M/s Poddar Global Ltd. under section 112(a) and section 112(b)(i) read with Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the contravention as explained in the foregoing paras." 4.1.Pertinently, as would be evident upon a perusal of the extract set forth hereinabove as also the contents of the show cause notice in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the demand of Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs. 49,48,680/- is completely untenable. 8. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that, notwithstanding the patent error in the show cause notice, the petitioner is willing to furnish a bank guarantee for a value equivalent to 10% of Rs. 49,48,680/-; which, is the figure adverted to in the counter affidavit and, is alluded to as the duty that the petitioner may have to pay for its alleged infraction of the law. 9.Ms.Hemalatha, who appears for the respondents on the other hand says that the while it is correct that the duty amount has not been adverted to in the show cause notice, the fact that there is a reference to Section 111(d) and section 111(o) of the Act in the show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice. (emphasis is mine) 13.A perusal of the Section 28(1)(a) would demonstrate that the proper officer is required to indicate in the show cause notice the amount which the noticee is called upon to pay. This is crucial for various reasons including an instance, where the noticee may not wish to contest the show cause notice. There could also be other instances, where, while the substance of the charge is accepted, the quantification of duty is disputed by the noticee. Accordingly, to my mind, the noticee needs to be informed as to the amount which the customs seeks to recover by way of duty. 14.The failure to mention the amount of duty that the petitioner would have to pay, according to me, impregnates the show cause notic....