TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 786
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Central Government on behalf of both respondents in both writ petitions are before this Court. 2. A common counter-affidavit has been filed by respondents in both writ petitions. 3. With consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writ petitions are taken up, heard out and are being disposed of. 4. Short facts shorn of not so necessary details/particulars or in other words, factual matrix in a nutshell, which is imperative for appreciating this common order runs as follows: (a) Writ petitioner imported a consignment, which is without any dispute, gift items i.e., 'Christmas trees, water bottles etc.', from China. (b) Writ petitioner through its agent filed nine (9) Bills of Entry for clearing aforesai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsignment or about the classification of consignment. There is no disputation even about the rate of duty payable and it is only a case of disputation qua valuation. While writ petitioner has valued said consignment at little over Rs. 30.62 lakhs, according to Customs Department, said consignment has to be valued at little over Rs. 41.08 lakhs. To be noted, the difference is Rs. 10,46,586/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fortysix Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Six only). In other words, the difference in valuation is little over Rs. 10.46 lakhs. (g) Customs Department therefore issued a 'Show Cause Notice' (hereinafter 'SCN' for brevity) dated 30.5.2018 bearing Reference F.No.SIIB/53/2017-CUS. in this regard. (h) Whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nished Bank Guarantees in favour of the first respondent for a total sum of Rs. 25,50,000/-. There is also no disputation or disagreement that Bank Guarantees have been renewed from time to time and that they are now subsisting. (k) When things stood as above, for entertaining writ petitioner's application before said Settlement Commission being aforementioned application dated 16.10.2018, writ petitioner made a request that aforesaid Bank Guarantees for a total sum of Rs. 25,50,000/- can be encashed and the same can be appropriated towards condition precedent adumbrated in clause (c) of First Proviso to Section 127-B(1). To be noted, writ petitioner has also made a sub-application before said Settlement Commission in this rega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that in cases of this nature, it is a normal thumb rule that fine and penalty put together will not exceed 15% of the value of consignment, though the provisions of law provide for more. Saying so, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner has already shown his bona fides by furnishing Bank Guarantees for Rs. 25,50,000/-, renewing it from time to time and keeping the same alive. 7. In response to the aforesaid arguments advanced by learned counsel for writ petitioner, learned Revenue Counsel submitted that the Bank Guarantees themselves were furnished as part of adjudication pursuant to aforementioned said SCN. Aforementioned SCN, proposes levy of fine, impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the nature of matter itself is not complex. Writ petitioner has also shown his bona fide by not only furnishing Bank Guarantees for a total sum of Rs. 25,50,000/-, but also by renewing the same from time to time. 10. Therefore, this Court is left with the considered view that this is an appropriate case for directing the second respondent Settlement Commission to entertain the application of writ petitioner being application dated 16.10.2018, after first respondent appropriates the Bank Guarantees for a total sum of Rs. 25,50,000/-. In other words, appropriation of Bank Guarantees by first respondent (To be noted, in the Bank Guarantees, the first respondent is the beneficiary) which shall be treated as compliance with condition preceden....