AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ness of import of miscellaneous electronic items, mobile accessories etc. 2. The challenge in the present petition, which is the second round of litigation, is to an order dated 2nd June, 2017 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Customs, by which goods imported by the Petitioner under five different Bills of Entry (B/E) were ordered to be released provisionally with conditions. Four of the B/Es were dated 8th April, 2017 and one was dated 19th April, 2017. 3. The background facts are set out in two orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the same Petitioner. The first being the order dated 30th May, 2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.4956/2017 which reads as under: "1. Notice. Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. 5. As far as B/E No. 9230914 dated 8th April, 2017 is concerned, Mr. Narula states that an order of the provisional release of the goods will be passed positively on or before 2nd June, 2017. 6. In relation to three B/Es i.e., Nos. 9141745, 9230885 and 9368425, Mr. Narula states that the seizure orders have been passed yesterday i.e., on 29th May, 2017. Copy thereof has been handed over to learned counsel for the Petitioner. As regards B/E 9229993 dated 8th April, 2017, he states the examination of the container is complete but there appears to be an issue regarding valuation. It is directed that an order in this regard should be passed on or before 2nd June, 2017. 7. That leaves three B/Es i.e., 9230900, 9230883 and 9371....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of 100% of the differential Customs duty amount; b) Furnishing of a Bond equivalent to re-determined value of the goods; c) Furnishing Bank Guarantee representing 15% of the differential duty with auto renewal clause as per Reserve Bank of India ('RBI') directions; d) Furnishing of an undertaking not to contest the identity, quantity and description of the goods. 6. Additionally in some of the consignments, one other condition is that the goods, which are restricted or prohibited or found mis-declared/undeclared, would not be released. 7. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the conditions are too harsh; that mis-declaration was found only to a small extent in 4 of the 5 B/Es; that the procedure that ought to have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laration of the quantity and value in four out of five B/Es. Mr Narula further pointed out that even prohibited goods like smart phones with sim slots were sought to be 'smuggled' in through larger consignments. Although the Petitioner may be a first time importer, the type of the goods sought to be imported were such that the interest of the revenue had to be protected and in those circumstances, the conditions imposed could not be said to be harsh or unreasonable. Mr Narula pointed out that impugned order was appealable and the Court should not lightly interfere with the provisional release order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. The legal position as regards provisional release of imported goods and distincti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Seaport-Import) 2014 (304) ELT 42 (Mad) involved misdeclared goods and the conditions imposed were the deposit of 100% of the duty on the declared value, 50% of the differential duty, and personal bond for the remaining 50%. 23. The power under Section 110 A of the Act involves exercise of discretion. The scope of judicial review is to examine if the discretion has been rightly exercised; that it is not based on irrelevant materials and is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. It is not an appellate power. The drawing of a distinction between seizure of imported goods as a result of undervaluation and seizure of imported goods upon misdeclaration cannot per se be said to be irrational. On the contrary, the failure to draw su....