TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of nutrition supplements for which bill of entry No. 5795615 dated 23.11.2019 was filed at ICD, Indore. The customs duty of Rs.7,53,643/- was paid by the said importer. However, before the goods could be cleared, the goods were examined by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Indore and were detained under Panchnama dated 29.11.2019 which were subsequently seized vide seizure memo dated 26.12.2019 under section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 on the allegation of under valuation. The importer M/s. Rudra Overseas applied for a provisional release of the said seized goods vide Seizure Memo dated 26.12.19. The residential premises of appellant were also searched in course of investigation and follow up action of the aforesaid seizure on 28.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rit petition No. 19808 of 2020. Pending the case, the Departmental rejected the appellants' request for provisional release of currency by the impugned order dated 15.12.2020. Since this order was appealable Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh directed to approach the appropriate forum. Consequently the said writ petition was withdrawn and present appeal challenging the said order of 15.12.2020 has been filed. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Ms Vibha Narang, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Ishwar Charan, learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Department. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the request has been rejected on two g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epartmental Representative opted not to make any further submissions. However, appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing the parties and perusing the entire record, it is observed and held as follows: From the show cause notice issued to the appellant on 30.12.2020 i.e. after the order under challenge was passed, it is apparent that appellant has been mentioned to be a bonafide owner of the goods imported by the importer M/s. Rudra Overseas. The said allegations have been leveled based upon the submissions of proprietor of M/s. Rudra Overseas namely M/s. Shri Sanjay Punjabi as well as the data as was retrieved from the laptop of said Sanjay Punjabi. Whether or not the allegations leveled in the Show Cause Notice stands the fate o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y is included in definition of 'goods'. The section reads as follows: "(22) "goods" includes- (a) Vessels, aircrafts and vehicles; (b) Stores; (c) Baggage; (d) Currency and negotiable instruments; and (e) Any other kind of movable property: No doubt in terms of section 121 of Customs Act, the sale proceeds of smuggled goods shall be liable to confiscation, but apparently the said provision shall not be applicable to the present case wherein there is no allegation of goods imported in question to be smuggled one. The allegations against the importing firm are that the goods as have been imported are undervalued. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurmukh Singh vs UOI [1984 (18) ELT 274] has held that where there is nothing to prove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uto Parts Pvt Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission reported as [2016 (336) ELT 358 (Tri Delhi)] wherein it has been held "7. The point for consideration is the correctness of the Original Authority's decision for refusing the provisional release of the seized currency to the appellant. The reason quoted by the ld. Commissioner is that there is no provision under Central Excise Act, 1944 to provisionally release the currency and it will also jeopardize the interest of the Revenue because of the involvement of huge duty and interest in this case. 8. Regarding the non-availability of requisite provision of law for provisional release of the seized currency under Central Excise Act, 1944, we find that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing B-11 Bond for Rs. 98,91,350/- and bank guarantee of Rs. 24,72,838/-. No legal authority has been quoted in the communication. The Department does not have a case that the provisional release of the seized goods as ordered on 16-8-2011 is not authorized by the law. Hence, applying a different treatment for the currency which is seized as goods (sale proceeds of non-duty paid goods) is not legally sustainable." Hon'ble Apex Court also in the case of Commissioner of Customs New Delhi vs. Euroasia global reported as [2009 (236) ELT 627 (SC)] has considered the question as to whether mis-declaration of description and value constitute "smuggling" as defined under section 2(39) of Customs Act, 1962, the question was decided in negative. Furt....