TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1451
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oth dated 10.09.2018. The goods are freely importable and constitute neither restricted nor prohibited goods. The goods were subject to examination and Examination Report confirms the classification and description of the goods as tallying with that set out in the invoices. 3. Notwithstanding the aforesaid position, the goods were detained at the Customs on 10.09.2018. The only basis for the seizure was that parallel sets of invoices were found in respect of the consignments, that clearly indicated under invoicing/under valuation of the goods. The petitioner filed a request on 01.10.2018 seeking release of the goods, to no avail. Thus, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.Nos.28692 and 28725 of 2018 seeking release of the two ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regarding under valuation would be disproved by the petitioner in the course of adjudication proceedings. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a series of orders of this Court as well as the Delhi High Court, which had been confirmed by the Supreme Court to illustrate that the assessee in the respective cases were called upon to pay 30% of the differential value of the duty as a pre-condition for release of the goods. He refers to several decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Navshakti Industries Pvt. ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi ((2011) 267 ELT 483), Bhaiya Fibres Ltd. v. Additional Director General of Revenue Intelligence ((2012) 281 ELT 396) and Zest Aviation Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner of Customs. The goods shall be released in terms of this order immediately on furnishing of the aforesaid bank guarantee and satisfaction of the concerned Commissioner of Customs. We also direct the Commissioner of Customs to hear the adjudication proceeding pending before him as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In terms of the aforesaid order, the appeal stands disposed of. We, however, make it clear that while passing the aforesaid order, we have not expressed any opinion or views on the merits of the dispute which shall be independently considered by the competent authority.' 7. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. Empire Exports, ((2013) 287 ELT 41) where also, in the context of under valuation, this Court directed the petitioner, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Navshakti Industries (supra), to pay 30% of the differential duty and execute a personal bond for the balance of 70%. Then again, another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Kanishka Enterprises ((2018) 361 ELT 465), also in the context of undervaluation, arrived at the same conclusion. 10. Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue does not dispute the facts in the matter. She however bring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rant deviation from the consistent view that has been taken, not only by the Benches of this Court, but also by the decisions arrived at by the Delhi High Court as confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Navshakti Industries (supra). 13. In the present case, the items on hand constitute stationery and gift items and decorations to be used in children's parties. The Circular relied on by the revenue is one that would apply if the proceedings for adjudication had been completed and the liability quantified. This is not so in the present case where proceedings for adjudication are yet to be initiated. 14. The cases cited at the Bar indicate the consistent view that release of the consignments be permitted in terms of Section 110A o....