2021 (2) TMI 207

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....k Guarantee of Rs. 1,38,12,513. The appellant challenged the said order on the ground that the condition of bank guarantee is exorbitant therefore, they seek reduction in the amount of the bank guarantee. 2. Shri Hardik Modh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the subject goods were seized alongwith other consignment under common seizure memo dated 27.11.2019. He invited our attention to the Annexure 'A' to the seizure memo dated 27.11.2019 wherein, five consignments were seized imported by various parties. He submits that out of five, two consignments mentioned at Sr. No.4 & 5 of Annexure 'A' were subject matter of the appeal before this tribunal. This tribunal vide Order No. A/11130/2020 dated 16.07.2020 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nk guarantee of Rs. 60,60,600/-. 2. Shri Hardik Modh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that this case is of live consignment therefore, early hearing application and appeal may be disposed of together. He submits that the respondent has imposed exorbitant conditions for provisional release of goods for home consumption under Section 110A of the Customs Act, demanding bank guarantee equivalent to the duty involved in the consignment is arbitrary, unreasonable and excessive. He submits that M/s. Alzpenta Tradelinks Pvt. Limited filed bill of entry claiming exemption. It is live consignments. The goods have not yet cleared for home consumption. The benefit of exemption notification has not been extended. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Respondent if the seized goods are allowed for re-export. 3. Shri S.K. Shukla, learned Superintendent (Authorised Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that there is clear attempt of evasion of duty by claiming scheme of advance authorisation fraudulently. Therefore, the goods are rightly seized and the condition imposed for provisional release is not harsh. He placed reliance on the following Board Circular and judgments:- (a) Board Circular No. 35/2017- Cus dated. 16.08.2017 (b) 2019 (365) ELT 312 (Mad) - CC, Chennai vs. Novel Impex (c) 2018 (364) ELT 932 (Tri-Mum) - S S Offshore Pvt. Limited vs. CC (Import-I), Mumbai (d) 2017 (357) ELT 1038 (Tri-Mum) - Vishal Collection ....