TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms Appeal No. 52593 of 2019 which, in turn, was preferred, before the learned Tribunal against Order-in-Original, dated 4th October, 2019 passed by the appellant. 2. Vide order dated 29th January, 2020, this appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the CESTAT can substitute its view for the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority U/S 110A? (ii) Whether the appellate jurisdiction of the CESTAT against an order passed u/s 110A is restricted to examining whether such an order has been passed after duly considering the law in respect of provisional release and not pass arbitrarily? (iii) Whether the appellant is entitled to provisional release of the seized gold in question in view of the facts and circumstances of this case?" Though, as noted hereinabove, three questions of law were framed by this Court, Question No. (iii) effectively subsumes Questions No. (i) and (ii). A Brief Factual Overview Relevant statutory provisions/Notifications 3. Exemption to imports under Advance Authorisation scheme 3.1 Notification 18/2015-Cus, issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, exempts, completely, from all Customs duties, materials ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule, and the whole of the, integrated tax, compensation cess leviable thereon respectively under subsection (7) and (9) of section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act, as is in excess of the amount indicated in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table. Table Sl.No. Description of goods Conditions (1) Goods exported - (a) under claim for drawback of any customs or excise duties levied by the Union; amount of drawback of customs or excise duties allowed at the time of export; (b) under claim of drawback of any excise duty levied by the State amount of excise duty leviable by State at the time and place of importation of the goods allowed at the time of export; (c) under claim for refund of integrated tax paid on export goods amount of refund of integrated tax, availed at the time of export; (d) under bond without payment of integrated tax amount of integrated tax not paid; (e) under duty exemption scheme (DEEC/Advanced Authorisation/DFIA) or Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme amount of integrated tax and compensation cess leviable at the time and place of importation of goods and subj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of this notification, "Special Economic Zone" has the meaning assigned to it in clause (za) of section 2 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (28 of 2005) Nil 5 Goods other than those falling under Sl No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 Nil Provided that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs/Deputy Commissioner of Customs is satisfied that - (a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) in the case of goods exported under the Duty Exemption Scheme (DEEC/Advance Authorisation/DFIA) or Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG) or Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB) or any award scheme of Chapter 3 of Foreign Trade Policy, reimportation of such goods takes place within one year of exportation of such extended period not exceeding one more year as the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, on sufficient cause being shown for the delay may be allowed; (d) The goods are the same which were exported; (e) xxxxx (f) xxxxx (g) xxxxx Provided further that .... xxxxx 2. This Notification will apply to the exports for which order permitting clearance and loading under section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962, has been given on or after first day of July, 2017. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such cases is not applicable. It is clarified that such re-import cannot be taken to be falling under situation at Sl. No. 1(d) of the said Notification. Such cases will fall more appropriately under residuary entry at Sl. No. 5 of the said Notification even though those specified goods were exported under LUT, in view of the fact that the activity of sending/taking specified goods out of India is neither a supply nor a zero rated supply. 4. It is also clarified that, even in cases where exports have been made to related or distinct persons or to principals or agents, as the case may be, for participation in exhibition or on consignment basis, but, such goods exported are returned after participation in exhibition or the goods are returned by such consignees without approval or acceptance, as the case maybe, the basic requirement of 'supply' as defined cannot be said to be met as there has been no acceptance of the goods by the consignees. Hence, re-import of such goods after return from such exhibition or from such consignees will be covered by entry at Serial no. 5 of the Notification No. 45/2017, dated 30-6-2017, provided reimport happens before six months from the date of del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceedings are pending adjudication. 10. The ADG, DRI, vide order dated 4th/7th October, 2019, rejected the request, of the respondent, for provisional release of the seized gold, gold jewellery and silver by opining that "it would be premature to arrive at any conclusion, about provisional release of seized goods, before completion of adjudication proceedings". 11. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred Customs Appeal 52593/2019, before the learned Tribunal, which has come to be allowed by the impugned Final Order. 12. As noted in para 1 supra, the learned Tribunal has, vide the impugned Final Order, set aside the order, dated 4th/7th October, 2019, of the ADG, DRI, and has permitted provisional release of the aforesaid gold, gold jewellery and silver, on furnishing of a bond, for the full value thereof, along with a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 1.25 crores, with an auto renewal clause. 13. Aggrieved thereby, the DRI has invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, conferred by Section 130 of the Act. 14. The learned Tribunal has, at the outset, noted that the decision, of the ADG, DRI, to the effect that it would be premature to adjudicate on the request, of the respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d at the workshop (a) Insofar as the 25 gold bars, seized at the workshop, were concerned, the respondent contended that, of the said 25 gold bars, 22 gold bars had been imported by it, under the Advance Authorisation, dated 4th January, 2019, held by it, vide Bill of Entry No. 2873828 dated 17th April, 2019. The respondent contended that, under the said Bill of Entry No. 2873288, 50 gold bars had been imported by it, each of which bore a unique bar number. (b) Comparison of the serial numbers of the seized 25 gold bars, with the numbers of the gold bars imported vide Bills of Entry No. 2873288 dated 17th April, 2019 and the Packing List, dated 15th April, 2019, it was seen that the bar numbers of 22 of the 25 gold bars tallied with the bar numbers of the gold bars imported vide the said Bill of Entry. These 22 gold bars had, therefore, been licitly imported, using the Advanced Authorisation issued to the respondent. (c) The remaining seized goods were in the nature of work in progress. The statement of the artisan (karigar) of the respondent, engaged in the said task, was to the effect that he was making jewellery and other articles, out of the imported gold and silver . The r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istered Bill of Entry, and signed by the respondent, covering 25299.68 grams of gold jewellery. Of these, the second Bill of Entry was not found in the list of manual Bills of Entry obtained from the ACC (Import). (v) Standing Order No. 03/2018, dated 18th December, 2018, mandated that the manual Bill of Entry was required to be submitted, containing the Bill of Entry Number, the Job ID Number and the date and signature of the Import Clerk. For want of compliance with this requirement, it was clear that the second, undated and unregistered Bill of Entry, found at the office premises of Vikram Bhasin, was fake/fraudulent. (vi) The aforesaid fake/unregistered Bill of Entry had been presented, for clearance of 25299.68 grams of gold jewellery, as was admitted in the statements recorded by Gopal Gupta and Amit Pal Singh, under Section 108 of the Act. (vii) It was also admitted, in the said statements, that the aforesaid two Bills of Entry were meant to be replaced, with a Bill of Entry covering a smaller quantity of gold jewellery, by Gopal Gupta, in collusion with Vikram Bhasin. (viii) This was also supported by the recovery of Bill of Entry No. 107854, dated 18th April, 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the respondent, but from Vikram Bhasin, which itself indicated that the imports were fraudulent. Relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs 2003 (155) ELT 423 (SC), the learned ASG submitted that the imported gold jewellery, thereby, was rendered "prohibited", and the release thereof, even at a provisional stage, impermissible. She also placed reliance, in this context, on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sheikh Mohd. Omer v. Collector of Customs 1983 (13) ELT 1439 (SC) and of the High Court of Madras in Malabar Diamond Gallery P. Ltd v. ADG, DRI 2016 (341) ELT 65 (Mad). 22. The learned ASG placed especial reliance on Circular 35/2017Cus, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC), titled "Guidelines for provisional release of seized imported goods pending adjudication under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962", specifically on para 2 thereof, which reads thus: "While provisional release of seized imported goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 may normally be considered by the competent adjudicating authority upon request made by the owner of the seized goods, provisional release shall not be al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, she submits, was impermissible. No reliance, she submits, could be placed on the appraisal report of Vikram Bhasin, who was in collusion with the respondent, and was a conoticee in the proceedings. She took us through the grounds, in the present appeal, as urged by the ADG, DRI. She also submitted that differential amounts were channelled out of India through hawala. 25. The above factors, submits the learned ASG, cumulatively viewed, clearly indicated that the learned Tribunal had erred in permitting provisional release of the seized gold, gold jewellery and silver. 26. Without prejudice to her submission, regarding the impermissibility of provisional release of the goods in issue, Ms. Acharya submits, as a fallback argument, that , even if the learned Tribunal were of the view that the seized gold, gold jewellery and silver could be provisionally released, the matter ought to have been remanded to the Commissioner/ADG to fix the terms of provisional release . She submits that the learned Tribunal was not competent to itself determine the terms of provisional release, thereby usurping the authority of the Commissioner/ADG, which had never been exercised in the first place. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts, could not be faulted. 30. Mr. Ganesh submits, further, that the appellant has not, in its appeal, either pleaded perversity, in the findings of the learned Tribunal, or suggested any issue to that effect. He submits that, therefore, the finding of fact, of the learned Tribunal, to the effect that the imported gold was completely accounted for, and that the gold, that had been exported for exhibition, was the same as that which was re-imported and subsequently seized, did not call for interference, at the hands of this Court. 31. Mr. Ganesh also seriously contests the submission, of the learned ASG, to the effect that the learned Tribunal acted in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that there was no request, on the part of the Departmental Representative, who argued the matter before the learned Tribunal, for an adjournment; rather, submits Mr. Ganesh, arguments, before the learned Tribunal, continued for over two days. 32. Apropos Circular No. 35/2017-Cus supra, on which the learned ASG placed pointed reliance, Mr. Ganesh invites attention to the judgement, of this Court, in Agya Import Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs 2018 (362) DLT 1037 (Del), which h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority on issues of fact. The learned Tribunal, as Mr. Ganesh correctly points out, is the final fact-finding authority. Before opining further in this regard, we deem it appropriate to extract, for ready reference, sub-section (1) of Section 130 of the Act, thus: "130. Appeal to High Court. - (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment), if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law." (Emphasis supplied) 38. An appeal, therefore, lies, to this Court, under Section 130 of the Act, only on "substantial questions of law". Dealing with an identical expression, as it occurs in Section 130A of the Act - which provides for reference, to the High Court, against orders of the learned Tribunal, and was the provision in existence, prior to 1st July, 2003, when the provision of appeal was introduced - the Supreme C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt or suppression of fact, the extended period for issuance of Show Cause Notice, under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was purely one of fact, and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. We may reproduce, in this context, para 17 of the judgement of the Supreme Court, thus: "Whether non-furnishing of information was wilful and would amount to suppression of material fact in terms whereof the extended period of limitation as provided for in Section 11A of the Customs Act, 1944, could be invoked or not, in our opinion, was not a substantial question of law. The finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal should have been treated to be final. It would be binding on the High Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. A "substantial question of law" would mean - of having been understood as something in contradistinction with - technical, are of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. [See Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi, (2007) 8 SCC 155]" 40. In Chandna Impex Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs 2011 (269) ELT 433 (SC), the Supreme Court, relying on its earlier decision in Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal (2006) 5 SCC 545,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tantial question of law. (iii) In Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) v. R. K. International 2017 (355) ELT 165 (SC), it was alleged that the respondent imported ball bearings, mis-declaring the imports as lead scrap. It was also alleged that the respondent had lent its name to certain decoy importers, who effected imports on behalf of the respondent. The learned Tribunal held that there was lack of conclusive proof with regard to actual identification of ball-bearings, and that the Revenue had failed to prove the presence of ball-bearings in the two consignments in issue. The Supreme Court refused to interfere, holding that "the entire findings of the learned Tribunal ... is on a pure appreciation of the evidence and material on record". The Supreme Court clarified the matter by observing that "the learned Tribunal being the last forum for determination of questions of fact and no perversity in the appreciation of the materials being discernible from the order of the learned Tribunal", it did not see "how these appeals can be scrutinised any further". It was held, therefore, that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal is, which required an authoritative determinat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with." In Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1999) 2 SCC 10, it was held that, "if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, however, compendious it may be, the conclusion would not be treated as perverse and findings would not be interfered with." This enunciation, of the law, was followed in Prem Kaur v. State of Punjab (2013) 14 SCC 653. 44. Absent perversity, or any of the other inhibiting factors highlighted in the judgements cited supra, findings of fact, returned by the learned Tribunal, are to be treated as final, and are not amenable to interference, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 130 of the Act. 45. Having thus generally delineated the scope of appellate jurisdiction under Section 130 of the Act, we deem it appropriate to emphasize, at the cost of repetition, that this Court is not sitting in appeal, consequent to an adjudicatory exercise, determining the correctness of the allegations in the Show Cause Notice dated 26th September, 2019, having been completed, and carried in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isional", we may note, has been defined, in Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon as "temporary, preliminary; tentative; taken or done by way of precaution or ad interim." 47. The exercise of power, to release imported goods on a provisional basis, under Section 110A of the Act is, essentially and fundamentally, discretionary in nature. At this point, we deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 110A of the Act, for ready reference, thus: "110A. Provisional release of goods, documents and things seized or bank account provisionally attached] pending adjudication. - Any goods, documents or things seized or bank account provisionally attached under section 110, may, pending the order of the adjudicating authority, be released to the owner or the bank account holder on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the adjudicating authority may require." (Emphasis supplied) It merits mention, here, that, while, earlier Bhaiya Fibres Ltd v. ADG, DRI, 2012 (281) ELT 396 (Del), this Court had expressed the view that there was no substantial difference between "provisional release" and "provisional attachment", a clear departure, from this view, was v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich reads thus: "125. Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. - (1) Whenever confiscation of any goods is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudging it may, in the case of any goods, the importation or exportation whereof is prohibited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized, an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit:" (Emphasis supplied) Section 125(1) of the Act permits release, on payment of duty and redemption fine, of goods prohibited, as well as not prohibited. In the case of prohibited goods, Section 125(1), by using the word "may", confers discretion, on the adjudicating authority, to grant, or not grant, the person, from whose custody or possession the goods had been seized, the option to release the goods on payment of redemption fine. In the case of goods which are not prohibited, however, Section 125 (1) mandates grant of permission, to the person, from whose custody or possession the goods were seized, the option....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."general guideline", and did not incorporate any mandate. We, having perused para 2 of Circular 35/2017-Cus supra, vis-à-vis Section 110A of the Act, are not inclined to be so magnanimous. According to us, para 2 of Circular 35/2017-Cus is clearly contrary to Section 110A and is, consequently, void and unenforceable at law. It is not permissible for the CBEC, by executive fiat, to incorporate limitations, on provisional release of seized goods, which find no place in the parent statutory provision, i.e. Section 110A of the Act. Executive instructions may, it is trite, supplement the statute, where such supplementation is needed, but can never supplant the statutory provision Lok Prahari v State of U.P., (2016) 8 SCC 389, which digests several earlier decisions. By excluding, altogether, certain categories of goods, from the facility of provisional release, para 2 of Circular 35/2017Cus supra clearly violates Section 110A, whereunder all goods, documents and things, are eligible for provisional release. Goods, which are eligible for provisional release under Section 110A of the Act, cannot be rendered ineligible for provisional release by virtue of the Circular. (Be it noted,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary". We are convinced that the jurisdiction, of the learned Tribunal, to "confirm, modify or annul" the order dated 4th October, 2019, was wide enough to encompass the power to direct provisional release, and fix the terms thereof. Remand, to the authority to pass the order under appeal before the learned Tribunal, is, statutorily, only an alternative course of action, the learned Tribunal. We may take judicial notice, at this point, of the fact repeated demands, to the authorities below, merely clog the litigative process and lead to multiplicity of proceedings, and benefits neither the assessee nor the Revenue. Where, therefore, the learned Tribunal is in a position to decide the appeal, it would be well advised to do so, rather than merely remand the matter to the authority below. Indeed, in a case in which the learned Tribunal is in a position to decide the appeal on merits, and pass effective unenforceable directions, remand, by it, of the proceedings, the authority below, may amount, practically, to abdication of its jurisdiction. It is obviously with a view to ensure that the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., find ourselves in agreement with Mr. Ganesh that any remand, of the matter, to the ADG, to fix the terms of provisional release, would have been an exercise in futility. For this reason, too, we are unable to hold that, in directing provisional release of the gold, gold jewellery and silver, and fixing the terms thereof, the learned Tribunal exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it. 57. Thirdly, it is trite that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, and that the appellate authority enjoys the powers vested in the original authority Kamla Devi v. Kushal Kanwar, (2006) 13 ELT 295. The power to direct provisional release, therefore, did vest in the learned Tribunal, and continues to vest in this Court, seized with successive appeals, emanating from the order of the ADG. It is for this reason that, in the orders to which Mr. Ganesh has alluded - and to which we do not deem it necessary to make reference - the terms of provisional release have been fixed by this Court and, on occasion, this Court has directed the learned Tribunal to fix the terms of provisional release. 59. We, therefore, reject the submission, of the learned ASG, that the learned Tribunal exceeded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or is such as no reasonable person would have arrived at. Absent these infirmities, we are convinced, in our mind, that no case for interference, with the decision of the learned Tribunal could be said to have been made out, even if we, on the facts, may be of the opinion that the learned Tribunal could have decided otherwise. These, in our view, are principles which are too well settled to merit repetition. 62. Viewed thus, how does the present case pan out? 63. Insofar as the 25 gold bars (each weighing 1 kg), 26.404 kg work in progress (in the form of gold) and 44.778 kgs of silver, seized at the workshop premises of the respondent, is concerned, the findings of the learned Tribunal reads thus: "28. So far as the seizure of 25 gold bars (1 kg each) totalling weighing 25 kg and cut pieces of gold bars, gold dust and assorted gold jewellery weighing 26,404 g and certain silver bars and cut pieces weighing 44908 g is concerned, it has been shown to us by learned Advocate that out of the 25 gold bars weighing 1 kg each is concerned, 22 gold bars had been imported by the appellant under Advance Authorisation Scheme vide Bill of entry No. 2873828 dated 17 April 2019. The bill of e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicate that the above findings, returned by the learned Tribunal - including the finding that the bar numbers of 22 of the 25 gold bars, seized from the workshop of the respondent, were identical to the bar numbers of the gold bars imported vide Bill of Entry No. 2873828 dated 17th April, 2019, using the Advance Authorisation issued to the respondent - are incorrect in any manner. 65. The decision, of the learned Tribunal, to permit provisional release of the gold, gold jewellery and silver, seized at the workshop premises of the respondent, being consequent on the afore-extracted findings, which have not been traversed in the appeal of the ADG, DRI, we find no reason to interfere therewith. 66. Adverting, now, to the gold jewellery seized at the Airport. 67. The gold jewellery, seized at the Airport, consisted of (i) 25400.06 g gold jewellery, in respect of which Bill of Entry No. 107190, dated 26th February, 2019, with corresponding Job No. 10954, dated 26th February, 2019, was presented, and (ii) 25299.68 kg gold jewellery, covered by an unregistered Bill of Entry, not bearing any Job number, and unsigned by any Customs Import Clerk or even by the respondent. 68. These t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns", in the said statements which, according to the, indicate that the aforesaid quantity of 51172.4 grams of gold jewellery was, in fact, being smuggled into India, using Bills of Entry which, at a later point of time, were to be replaced with Bills of Entry for lesser quantities. According to the allegations in the Show Cause Notice, the differential quantity of gold jewellery was, in fact, destined for Nepal, and had been smuggled into India by availing, illegally, the benefit of Notification 45/2017-Cus supra. 71. The submissions, though attractive at first blush do not, on closer scrutiny, make out a case for interference, by this Court, with the decision, of the learned Tribunal, to permit provisional release of the seized gold jewellery. The mere fact that, at a later point of time, all copies of the concerned Bills of Entry were found with the Jewellery Appraiser Vikram Bhasin, in our view, does not militate against the fact that, at the time of their clearance, Amit Pal Singh did, in fact, present to Bills of Entry, one of which was duly registered, with a Job number, and had been signed by the Customs Import Clerk, and the second, unregistered, undated and unsigned. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the time of provisional release, the importer is required to furnish a bond, covering the full value of the imported goods, along with security, in accordance with law. Allowing provisional release of the seized gold jewellery does not, therefore, interfere, in any manner, with due adjudication of the Show Cause Notice, or with the jurisdiction, of the adjudicating authority, to hold the gold jewellery liable to confiscation. The mere fact that imported goods, consequent on adjudication may, possibly, be held to be liable to confiscation at a later stage, cannot be a ground to refuse provisional release. Else, Section 110A of the Act would, in our view, be largely rendered nugatory and otiose. 74. The order, dated 4th October, 2019 supra, of the ADG, DRI, as also the submissions advanced by the Revenue before the learned Tribunal and, thereafter, before us (through the learned ASG) rely, essentially, on the allegations in the Show Cause Notice, dated 26th September, 2019, as a ground to oppose the request for provisional release of the seized gold jewellery. This, in our view, is an erroneous approach. Seizure of goods is, in nearly every case, bound to invite, in its inevitable w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to any proceeding under this Act, other than a proceeding before a court, as they apply in relation to a proceeding before a court." A Division Bench of this Court has, speaking through A. K. Sikri, J. (as he then was) held, in J & K Cigarettes Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise 2009 (242) ELT 109 (Del) that, by virtue of sub- section (2), Section 138B(1) of the Act would apply, with as much force, to adjudication proceedings, as to criminal proceedings. Following this, it has been held, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in Jindal Drugs Pvt Ltd v. U.O.I. 2016 (340) ELT 67 (P & H) that, unless and until one of the circumstances contemplated by clause (a) of Section 138B(1)(a) applies, the adjudicating authority is bound to follow, strictly, the procedure outlined in clause (b), before treating a statement, recorded under Section 108 of the Act, as relevant. (We may note, here, that Jindal Drugs 2016 (340) ELT 67 (P & H) was rendered in the context of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is, however, in pari materia, and in ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, to such a searching and detailed procedure, before they are treated as relevant in adjudication proceedings, we are of the firm view that such statements, which are yet to suffer such processual filtering, cannot be used, straightaway, to oppose a request for provisional release of seized goods. The reliance, in the appeal before us, on various statements recorded during the course of investigation in the present case cannot, therefore, in our view, invalidate the decision, of the learned Tribunal, to allow provisional release of the seized 25400.06 grams of gold jewellery, covered by Bill of Entry No. 107190, dated 20th April, 2019. 78. We find no reason, therefore, to interfere with the decision of the learned Tribunal, to allow provisional release of the said 25400.06 grams of gold jewellery, covered by Bill of Entry No. 107190, dated 20th April, 2019. 79. We are, however, of the view that the learned Tribunal erred in clubbing the aforesaid quantity of 25400.06 grams of gold jewellery which 25299.68 grams of gold jewellery, the Bill of Entry in respect of which was undated, unregistered and unsigned, by the importer as well as by the Customs Import Clerk. Submission of a r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow, to the terms of provisional release, the impugned Final Order does not set out any precise reasoning for having permitted provisional release on furnishing of a bond with Bank Guarantee for Rs. 1.25 crores. A Division Bench of this Court had, in Navshakti Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD 2011 (267) ELT 483 (Del), permitted provisional release, of the goods in issue in that case, on furnishing of a bond covering 20% of the differential duty payable on the goods, with no other condition. The said condition was modified by the Supreme Court, in appeal as reported in 2011 (269) ELT A 146 (SC), by directing furnishing of a bank guarantee for 30% of the differential duty payable on the goods. Zest Aviation Pvt Ltd v. U.O.I. 2013 (289) ELT 243 (Del) and Aban Exim Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner of Customs 2015 (319) ELT 430 (Del), too, followed the same standard, by allowing provisional release on furnishing of a bank guarantee covering 30% of the differential duty payable on the goods in issue. Furnishing of a bond, for the value of the goods, along with a bank guarantee covering 30% of differential duty, was the standard followed, subsequently, while permitting provi....