TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 628
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order/communication passed by the second respondent, dated 06.10.2017, in exercise of his powers under Section 110 (A) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act'), permitting provisional release of the goods, covered under Bill of Entry No.2078826, dated 13.06.2017. 3. The petitioner had imported certain goods from China. The consignment was said to contain LED rope lights, light panels, etc., The consignment was detained on a reasonable suspicion that, there has been mis-declaration of the retail selling price of the products. Pending investigation, the petitioner is stated to have remitted a sum of Rs. 7.54 lakh approximately, vide TR 6, on 31.07.2017; and sum of Rs. 3.17 lakh on 31.07.2017, being the addit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and the question of exactly quantifying the adjudication levies cannot arise at this stage, and, if done so, it would amount to pre-judging the matter. Similarly, with regard to duty liability for the two earlier imports, the second respondent has stated that, DRI, CZU has given a report that the duty liability works out over Rs. 30,00,000/-. However, it appears that, till date, in respect of the two earlier imports effected by the petitioner, which were cleared in June, 2017, no notice has been issued to the petitioner for re-opening the assessment, and therefore, the respondent/Customs Department cannot withhold the live consignment, and seek to recover duty liability in respect of the past imports, for which, no proceedings have been i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the entirety of the Act and the other laws. Production of legal and valid documents for import, along with payment of duty, determined on the goods imported are certainly conditions to be satisfied by an importer. If the conditions for import are not complied with, then, such goods, cannot be permitted to be imported, and thus, to be treated as prohibited from being imported. 8. The factual matrix of the present case appears to be not in dispute, as the allegation was not pertaining to mis disclaration of the nature of the goods, but with regard to retail selling price of the products. Thus, if ultimately, on adjudication, it is found that that the retail selling price declared by the petitioner, in the Bill of Entry is lower than the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an identical case was considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Bombay High Court, in the case of Biharilal Singhal Vs. Union of India [(2010) 253 E.L.T. 358 (Bombay)]. While issuing similar order of provisional release, the petitioner therein, by impugned communication, dated 29.09.2009, was called upon to submit a bank guarantee equivalent to the two Bills of Entry, along with past 28 Bills of Entry finally assessed even in the year 2009. While testing the correctness of the said communication, the Hon'ble Division Bench came down heavily on the Revenue and deprecated their action, in seeking to recover the dues in respect of the past imports, where, the duties were finally assessed. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned act and if so, does it satisfy the test of reasonableness. Where, a mode is prescribed for doing an act, and there is no impediment in following that procedure, performance of the act otherwise and in a manner, which does not disclose any discernible principle,which is reasonable, may itself, attract the vice of arbitrariness. Even statutory order must be informed by reason and it follows that, an act uniform by reason, is arbitrary. Rule of law contemplates governance by laws and not by humour, whims or caprices of the men to whom, the governance is entrusted for the time being. It is trite that, 'be you ever so high, the laws of above view. (Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f quantifying the same at this stage, without opportunity to the petitioner. Further, the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- for the duty liability in respect of the past imports cannot be insisted upon at this juncture, as no proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, in respect of those consignments, which were already cleared. 15. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned communication dated 06.10.2017 and the clarification, dated 24.10.2017, to the extent indicated below;- i The petitioner is directed to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,39,326/- and furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. Rs. 16,69,783- (Rs.46,69,783/ - Rs. 30,00,000 = Rs. 16,69,783/-). Both the personal bond and the bank guara....