2022 (4) TMI 216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ircles were placed under seizure by the Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on 13.10.2020. During the investigation statement of Proprietor Shri Mukesh Mittal of the appellant, M/s Mukesh Steel was recorded on 19.08.2020, 11.09.2020, 14.09.2020, 21.09.2020 and 29.09.2020. The seizure memo records that the appellant had the undervaluation. Later on statement of Shri Amil Mittal, uncle of Shri Mukesh Mittal was recorded on 15.09.2020, 18.09.2020 and 30.09.2020. The seizure memo also records that Shri Amit Mittal also admitted under valuation of the consignment. The seizure memo records as under:- Thereafter a corrigendum to the seizure memo was issued: 1.2 The appellant applied for provisional release of goods and vide....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2020 wherein the goods were released on furnishing a bond of total value with bank guarantee of only 50% of the total duty involved. She also relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Spirotech Heat Exchangers Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2016 (341) ELT 110 (Del.) wherein provisional release was allowed on condition of a bond equal to 100% of the value of goods and bank guarantee for 30% differential duty. 2.2 She further argued that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellant s 75% of the stock was illegally detained for a period of 8 months as majority of goods were domestically procured. She relied on the decision of Tribunal in case of Nathi Mal Rugan Mal vide Final Order No. 86451 of 2021 dated 15.07.2021, wher....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant. The value of goods is Rs. 1,91,91,322.23 and the approximate differential duty comes to Rs. 20,65,915/-. The competent authority has fixed the terms of provisional release as a bond equal to goods and bank guarantee equal to 2.5% times the duty amount. The competent authority has relied on circular no. 35 of 2017-Cus dated 16.08.2017. Para 2 of the said circular reads as follows: 2. 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 a request made by the owner of the seized goods, provisional release shall not be allowed in the following cases - (i) Goods prohibited under the Customs Act, 1962 or any other Act for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecorded in writing, increase or decrease the amount of security deposit as indicated above. 6. It is apparent that in terms of clause i, ii and iii of para 2.2. of the said Circular, the Bank Guarantee should include the differential duty, the amount of fine that may be levied in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the amount of penalties that may be levied under Customs Act, 1962. The said Circular gives discretion to the Competent Authority to increase or decrease the amount of security deposit depending on facts of the case. In the instant case the Competent Authority has fixed the security amount as 2.5 times the duty amount. From the defense presented by the appellant, it has not been denied that the go....