TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 659
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....02.2019 and since they were found liable for confiscation under Section 113(i) and 113(ia) of the Customs Act, 1962, they were seized. Shipping Bill No/ Date Invoice Packing List No/ Date Net Weight FOB in Rs Drawback in Rs 1633313/29.01.2019 47/19.01.2019 100 1813222.40 27198 1633517/29.01.2019 48/19.01.2019 100 1813222.40 27198 1634587/29.01.2019 49/19.01.2019 100 1813222.40 27198 1633322/29.01.2019 50/19.01.2019 100 1813222.40 27198 1633312/29.01.2019 51/19.01.2019 100 1813222.40 27198 1537306/29.01.2019 44/17.01.2019 100 2115801.06 31737 1537560/29.01.2019 43/17.01.2019 100 2115801.06 31737 1537563/29.01.2019 45/17.01.2019 100 2115801.06 31737 1537305/29.01.2019 42/17.01.2019 100 2115801.06 31737 1537300/29.01.2019 46/17.01.2019 100 2115801.06 31737 Total 1000 19645117.30 294675 2.2 By the letter dated 02.05.2019 appellants were given the option to take the provisional release of the seized goods on execution of the bond equivalent to the value of seized goods supported by a bank guarantee of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rs Thirty Lakhs). Instead of taking the provisional release of the seized goods as directed, appellants....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2019 he is prepared to execute the bond/ undertaking of value equivalent to the value of goods. * The supporting bank guarantee prescribed as per the letter dated 18.03.2019 is of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) which may be reduced to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs). 3.3 Learned AR for the Revenue while reiterating the findings recorded in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) submits that, * the appellant had not been co-operating in the investigation in spite of repeated summons; * they failed to appear in the matter before the investigating authority; * Accordingly the appeal should be rejected; 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in the appeal and during the course of argument. 5.1 In the present case the goods were cleared for the purpose of export and have been under seizure from 18.02.2019. After the seizure of the goods, appellants have been given the option for provisional release of the seized goods vide the order/ letter dated 02.05.2019 on execution of bond equivalent to the value of seized goods supported by a bank guarantee of the value of Rs. 30,00,000/-. 5.2. In para 2.2 of his order, Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he conditions of Bond and Bank Guarantee mentioned in the order of provisional release are reasonable. 9.3 In the present case, on examination the goods have been found to be mis-declared in terms of valuation and hence the same were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Competent Authority provided an option to the appellant to provisionally release the goods on execution of Bond of value equivalent to the FOB value of the goods and on furnishing the Bank Guarantee. The case is still under investigation by the department and the matter is yet to be adjudicated. In the circumstances, the conditions imposed by the Original Authority for provisional release of the goods is quite reasonable, in order to safeguard the Government revenue. 10. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the Order/Letter dated 02.05.2019 issued by the Original Authority for provisional release. The appeal No. 40/2019 filed by M/s. Vishu International is rejected." 5.3 Commissioner (Appeal) has in his order in para 4 of his order recorded the submissions made by the department before him, in following words: "4.....The Departmental Representative Shri Ashish Titoria (PO/SI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4.01.2011 "Attention is invited to the Board Circular No.33/2005-Customs dated 2.08.2005 which contains the instructions regarding provisional release of goods entered for exportation and is seized on the ground of mis-declaration in terms of quantity and value. 2. Instances have come to the notice of the Board that export consignments continue to be detained and not allowed clearance on provisional basis on account of pending test reports / investigations for alleged misdeclaration in terms of quantity, value and description of the goods. In one case it was reported that the detained goods were not allowed to be exported provisionally on the ground that Board"s Circular referred above provides for provisional release of only the seized goods. 3. In this regard it is observed that inordinate detention of the seized goods entered for exportation results in delays in fulfillment of export order and at times cancellation of such orders. Detention of goods also adds to congestion in ports besides resulting in payment of demurrage charges to the Custodians. Accordingly, the matter has been reexamined by the Board with the view to ameliorate the aforementioned difficulties faced by ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity and the export allowed expeditiously unless the prohibited nature of goods is confirmed. Continued detention of any export goods in excess of 3 days must be brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Customs, who will safeguard the interest of the genuine exporters as well as the revenue." Circular No 01/2011-Cus dated 04.01.2011 "Attention is invited to the Board Circular No. 01/2011-Customs dated 04.01.2011 regarding provisional release of export goods that are detained or seized. The said Circular was issued with the objective of expediting the clearance of export goods and to ensure that where permissible by law, exports should not get unduly delayed, thereby causing congestion in ports as well as delays in fulfilment of export orders. Thus, it was instructed that provisional release of export goods that are suspected of being mis-declared or where declaration is to be confirmed by further enquiry / test or detained/seized for mis-declaration of quantity / value / description should be given on execution of Bond and suitable security to cover the redemption fine and penalty (Para 4 of Board Circular No. 01/2011-Customs dated 04.01.2011). Further, continued detention of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll be of Rs. 2,94,675/-. 5.6 In the present case when the goods have not been released even after the lapse of 18 months, we do not find any justification for imposing such harsh conditions by the Revenue while permitting provisional release of the goods. Accordingly we direct that the appellant should execute a bond equivalent to the value of the seized goods as has been directed by the Revenue vide its letter dated 02.05.2019 supported by a bank guarantee of Rs. 5,00,000/- only, which in our view is in accordance with the spirit of the Board Circulars referred above. 5.7 During the course of hearing, submission was made that the proceedings in the matter are still not finalized and even show cause notice in respect of the seized goods is still to be issued. It was also pointed that appellants were not cooperating and presenting themselves before the investigating authorities. So we direct that the appellant should cooperate fully in the process of investigation and present itself before the concerned investigating authorities whenever called for, so that the proceedings in the matter get finalized at the earliest. Since the proceedings in the matter are still not finalized by t....