TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 447
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2017 and found to be as declared in terms of quantity and description. However, goods were not released at the instance of the DRI who conducted re-examination of the goods on 01.11.2017. It appears that although the goods on re-examination were again found to be as declared in terms of quantity and value, the goods were detained and seized by the DRI vide seizure memo issued by DRI Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad. The appellants filed Writ Petition No.31762/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras for release of the goods. Vide an order dt. 21.12.2017, the Hon'ble High Court directed the department to consider the petitioner's (appellant's) application for provisional release and also consider the request of appellants for waiver of demurrages ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned twice, once by the assessing officers and once by the D.R.I. However, the goods have been found to be tallying in quantity and description as declared in the respective Bills of Entry. (ii) The goods are neither restricted or prohibited for export for import, clearance of goods is however pending since 6.10.2017 without any justifiable reason, incurring heavy container detention, demurrage and other incidental charges to date. (iii) Appellants have made representation to DRI. However they have been only advised to approach the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs for provisional release of the seized goods. (iv) Seizure memo of the DRI although dated 18.12.2017 was actually posted only on 27.12.2017 after High Court of Madras....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9) ELT A146 (SC) directed that the goods shall be cleared on furnishing Bank Guarantee of 30% of the differential duty. (viii) They also rely upon following case laws : (a) CC Tuticorin Vs Empire Exports 2013 (287) ELT 41 (Mad.) (b) Bhaiya Fibres Ltd. Vs ADGRI 2012 (281) ELT 396 (Del.) (c) Spirotech Heat Exchangers Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI 2016 (341) ELT 110 (Del.) (ix) Ld. Advocate therefore pleads for setting aside the impugned order upholding the burdensome conditions put by the Customs authorities for effecting provisional release of the goods. 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supports the impugned order. He submits that in such cases where provisional release of imported goods are invo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....veer Kumar by DRI. The threefold enhancement of the value arrived at thus appears to be based on only partial and incomplete investigations. We are distressed to note that none of these aspects appear have been taken cognizance of or considered by the Department in their communication dated 19.01.2018 to appellant, conveying the decision of the competent authority for provisional release and the conditions attached thereto. There is also no explanation on the raison d'être for ordering Bank Guarantee of Rs. 1 crore, which translates to as much as 69% of the ‚enhanced value‛ even. We also note that the High Court's directions that ‚department should also consider the request for wavier of demurrage and detention c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ential duty for provisional release of goods is contrary to Regulation (2) of Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 1963 which postulates deposit of 25% of provisional duty. Closer home, the High Court of Madras, which is a jurisdictional High Court for this forum, in Empire Exports (supra) following the Apex Court judgement in Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well as other judgments of the High Court of Madras, in a case where Revenue valued the goods much more than the value declared by the assessee, has directed as follows : (1) that importer should pay the duty as declared by them; (2) to pay 30% of differential duty of admitted value and (3) to execute a personal bond for the balance amo....