2022 (2) TMI 969

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s are in the form of Manganese Ore. The case of the Department is that there are reasons to believe that the goods have not been imported from Saudi Arabia but those have been imported from Pakistan. In accordance with the policy, if the goods are imported from Pakistan, the duty leviable is @ 200%. The case of the writ applicant is that the goods have been imported from a Company based at Abu Dhabi (Saudi Arabia). 2. Mr. Dhaval Vyas, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Department submitted that the DRI at the instance of the Customs Authority has undertaken necessary inquiry as to whether the goods have in fact been imported from Abu Dhabi or the same have been imported from Pakistan. According to Mr. Vyas, the inquiry....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... difference between the duty that may be finally assessed and the provisional duty and deposits with the proper officer such sum not exceeding twenty per cent of the provisional duty, as the proper officer may assess the duty on the goods provisionally at an amount equal to the provisional duty." 6. It is not in dispute that till this stage, there has been no seizure of the goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act. If there would have been a seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, then probably the writ applicant could also have moved an application for provisional release of the goods under Section 110-A of the Customs Act. Regulation 2 of the Regulations 1963 referred to above would come into play when the proper officer on acc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 17. There are many judgments of different High Courts which have been placed by Mr. Nayak for our consideration. One of the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Spirotech Heat Exchangers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2016(341) E.L.T. 110 (Del.) takes the view that the provisional release of seized goods on the condition of payment of 100% of differential duty along with bank guarantee equivalent to 25% of differential duty and bond for 100% of value of the goods would be termed as very harsh condition and contrary to the judgments of the High Courts and Supreme Court. In the said case, the Delhi High Court directed to release the goods subject to the petitioner executing a bond in a sum equivalent to 100% value of the g....