2018 (7) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal release, as per the impugned order, are as follows:- (i) furnishing of bank guarantee of Rs. 34,06,418/- (covering differential duty, redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962) with an auto renewal clause as per RBI guidelines; (iii) Furnishing of Bond equivalent to the value of the goods i.e. Rs. 67,85,877/-; and (iii) An undertaking /affidavit that the importer shall not dispute the value and identity of the seized goods. 3. The appellant is a Proprietorship firm located at Karol Bagh, New Delhi. In the normal course of trade, the appellant imported various miscellaneous items like Teflon tapes, casual shoes, polyester door mat, terracotta bowl set etc from its foreign ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. In presence of CHA Representative. The goods were found as declared, save and except Teflon tapes were in 24 nos. against the declared quantity of 48 nos. and Halogen bulb of 500 watt were found short by 33200.Further, it is observed in the seizure memo that Revenue got through investigation different higher value (in excel form) of same consignment, was found. It appeared to Revenue, a case of under-invoicing of the goods. Accordingly, observing that the goods were being mis-declared in respect of value /quantity, the same were seizued under 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the reasonable belief that the goods were liable to be confiscated under Sectin 111/118 of the Customs Act. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 64.84 lakhs. The Hon'ble High Court kept all the issues open with direction to this Tribunal to grant an early hearing in the matter. 7. Accordingly, the ld. Counsel has prayed that the terms of provisional release are harsh and almost 3 times value of the goods, bank guarantee has been demanded, which is very difficult to meet by the appellant, which is almost impossible. The ld. Counsel submitted that till date the Department has not issued the show cause notice nor have furnished the proposed valuation of the goods. As the conditions are arbitrary, ld. Counsel prays for modification , in the interest of justice. 8. Ld. AR for Revenue opposes the prayer for modification in the terms of provisional release. 9. Having considered ....