TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....200/- and Assessable Value is Rs. 30,795/-, may be released under Section 110A of the Customs Act 1962 on furnishing :- (i) A bond equal to Assessable Value. (ii) Security of Rs. 8,302/- (eight thousand three hundred and two only) estimated duty on the above values) either as bank guarantee or as cash deposit.) (2) The goods seized under seizure memo dated 28.10.2016 at Nutrition 7, SCO 74, First Floor, Sector 46, Chandigarh, where re-determined value (MRP) for CVD purpose is Rs. 6,30,335/- and assessable value is Rs. 1,87,502/-, may be released u/s 110A on furnishing:- (i) A bond equal to the assessable value. (ii) Security of Rs. 56,511/- (Fifty six thousand five hundred and eleven only) being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zure memos, after having taken release of the goods. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the goods were finally cleared on payment of duty but later on seized on the ground of under-valuation by DRI and the condition for provisional release has been harsh. Therefore, he prays that the conditions of release to be made liberal, as the goods are perishable. He submits that the impugned order is asking to furnish undertaking that appellant will not challenge identity, description and other particulars at the time of adjudication since the goods will not be available after provisional release. The said condition is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the said condition needs to be waived. He further submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the light of the decision in the case of GS Nuts vs. CC 2016 (335) ELT 397 (Del.). Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order has to be modified to that extent. 3. On the other hand, ld. AR reiterates the findings in the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that initially the goods in question were released on payment of duty. Later on, investigation was conducted and it was charged by DRI that the goods are undervalued and the same are seized. It is also seen that the goods are perishable in nature and therefore, are required provisional release. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order has directed the appellants either to deposit full differential duty or bank guara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n informed that no prosecution has been launched against the Appellants for a violation of Section 111(o) of the Act till date. 12. Taking all these facts into consideration as well as the fact that the amount of duty paid has been lying with the Respondents for the last so many years, we do not think it appropriate to continue with the condition requiring the Appellants to deposit 25% of the value of the seized goods by way of a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Respondents." The said order has been further modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and observed as under:- "The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th May, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dently considered by the competent authority." 5. I find that the adjudicating authority has relied upon CBEC Circular No. 38/2016 dated 22.08.2016. The said Circular do not bound this tribunal to liberalise the condition of provisional release in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of UOI vs. Amalgamated Plantation (P) Limited 2016 (340) ELT 310 (Gau.). Therefore, I modify that the goods to be released on a condition of furnishing bank guarantee of 30% of the differential duty to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Customs. The goods shall be released in terms of furnishing bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the concerned Commissioner of Customs. 6. Further I find that in the case of Bil....