2020 (7) TMI 326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s i.e. Rs. 3,85,89,279/- supported by bank guarantee of Rs. 1.60 Crore. The appellant also filed early hearing application. 2. Shri Amit Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the value of imported goods 'Plain White Papers in Rolls' was enhanced without any basis and show cause notice on the issue is yet to be issued. The Principal Commissioner, as against the differential duty amount of Rs. 59,43,370/-, has asked for bank guarantee of Rs. 1.60 Crores, which is very harsh. 3. Shri Amit Jain, learned Counsel, with regard to early hearing application submits that goods are lying at CFS. Since it is a live consignment, early hearing may be granted. He also requested that since a limited issue of conditio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Addl. Director General, DRI - 2017 (353) ELT 446 (Del.) (b) Addl. Director General vs. Mala Petrochemicals & Polymers -2018 (360) ELT A256 (SC) (c) Agya Import Limited vs. CC, New Delhi - 2018 (362) ELT 1037 (Del.) (d) ITC Limited vs. CCE, Kolkata-IV - 2019 (368) ELT 216 (SC) (e) Jairath International vs. UoI - 2019 (370) ELT 116 (P&H) (f) State Enterprises vs. CC, New Delhi - 2019 (3) TMI 1341 5. He also submits that CFS M/s. Honeycomb who is the custodian of the goods which was given under Supurdnama dated 28.01.2020, insisting for demurrage and detention charges. However, the goods were seized and given on Supurdnama by DRI to the CFS. CFS has undertaken not to charge any rent or amount fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ers vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai - 2019 (367) E.L.T. 353 (Mad.) (g) Union of India vs. Jam Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. - 1996 (86) ELT 460 (SC) (h) Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. Virgo Steels -2002 (141) ELT 598 (SC) (i) Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar vs. Re-Rolling mills - 1997 (94) ELT 8 (SC) (j) Commissioner of Customs, C.G.O. vs. Sonam International -2012 (275) ELT 326 (All.) (k) A.G. Incorporation vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi - 2013 (287) E.L.T. 357 (Tri. Del.) 7. Countering the argument of learned Authorised Representative, Shri Amit Jain submits that though, in Board Circular No. 35/2017-Cus, in Para 2.2 guideline for furnishing bank guarantee amount i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enhancement of value is legal or illegal. However, considering the various judgments and facts of the present case, we find that terms of bank guarantee fixed by learned Principal Commissioner at Rs. 1.6 Crore is very excessive as against the total differential duty involved Rs. 59 Lakh approx. As regards the Authorised Representative's argument that as per Board Circular 35/2017-Cus dated 16.08.2017, the competent authority has correctly worked out Rs. 1.6 Crore for bank guarantee which takes care of differential duty, penalty and find etc. We find that in Para 2.3 of the Circular, the discretion is given to the competent authority to decrease or increase the amount of bank guarantee for the purpose of provisional release of the goods. The....