TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Petitioner has to first make a request for supply of gold quantity-wise for export purpose. MMTC then obtains the necessary documents from the Petitioner, viz., the export order and a BG as security for the duty foregone on the basis of the value of the gold. Within 90 days of the procurement of such gold and its handing over to the Petitioner, the Petitioner is expected to export the jewellery. After such export, the Petitioner is required to furnish a Bank Realization Certificate to show that the goods have been exported and foreign remittance against the said export has been received. After all of the above steps are completed, the security deposited in the form of BG with MMTC is discharged. 4. According to the Petitioner, it has been making gold jewellery exports out of the gold procured through MMTC against security deposited with the MMTC, and over a period of time, a total security deposit of Rs. 81,70,000/- has been lying with the MMTC. 5. The DRI commenced investigation into alleged fraudulent diversion of gold jewellery meant for export. According to the DRI, the Petitioner was one of the members of a syndicate of exporters involved in such illegal activities. Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....og and M/s. MMTC on behalf of M/s Ambika Vikas Udyog towards non export should not be appropriated against the confirmed demand of Customs duty, interest and penalty." 9. The above paragraph acknowledged that the Petitioner had already deposited a total of Rs. 47,12,635/- and that the customs duty which was recoverable was Rs. 46,48,286/-. This was apart from interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act'). The Petitioner replied to the said SCN on 10th March, 2018 requesting that the proceedings against it be dropped. 10. In the meanwhile, by letter dated 29th May, 2017 the Petitioner requested that the above instructions to MMTC be withdrawn. When the said request was not acceded to, the present writ petition was filed. 11. When the writ petition was heard first on 13th April, 2018, this Court passed the following order: "Notice, returnable on 18.7.2018. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Counter-affidavit will be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within four weeks, after counter-affidavit is served. We clarify that we have not stayed any proceedings, pursuant to the Show Cause Notice. The peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'instructions' to the MMTC to withhold the BG/security amount, Mr. Aggarwala submitted, on the strength of the above decisions, that the Petitioner should nevertheless be asked to furnish some form of security to the DRI if it were to withdraw the instructions given to the MMTC. 15. The above submissions have been considered by the Court. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that this Court in its order dated 13th April, 2018 itself made it very clear to the DRI that it had not stayed the proceedings pursuant to the SCN. This Court also required the Petitioner to cooperate in those proceedings. Although according to Mr. Aggarwala, the Petitioner's representative did not appear in the adjudication hearings, the partner of the Petitioner, who is present in the Court states that he did appear on 26th April, 2019 in the adjudication proceedings and that no further date of hearing has been communicated to him. 16. However, even assuming that the Petitioner failed to appear on the dates fixed in those proceedings, the Adjudicating Officer was supposed to proceed and pass the adjudication order in accordance with law. There was no restraint on him from doing so. On the contrary, it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter affidavit, as providing a legal basis for such instructions. 20. Turning now to the two decisions cited by Mr. Aggarwala, it is seen that in Commissioner of Customs v. Euroasia Global (supra), an amount of Rs. 23.90 lacs in cash had been seized from the premises of the Respondent in that case and it was sought to be explained that the said amount represented sale proceeds of the imported goods. It was in those circumstances that the Supreme Court interfered with the order of the High Court directing release of such seized cash to the Respondent on the ground that such release ought not to have been 'unconditional'. The Supreme Court called upon Euroasia Global to furnish a BG, but it was unable to do so. 21. The facts here are different. The Petitioner has admittedly deposited Rs. 47,12,635/- upfront even during the course of the investigation. Further, the investigations are complete and that is how a SCN had been issued to the Petitioner. The amount, even according to the DRI, which is owed by the Petitioner is Rs. 46,48,286/- as customs duty. There can be no justification for the DRI to insist that the BG/security in the sum of Rs. 81,70,000/- deposited by the Petitioner w....