TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1404
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." a) Quash the Seizure Memo dated: 13.08.2021 at Annexure-A, issued by the 1st Respondent as is not issued by the " proper Officer" under the Act and hence ban in law and without jurisdiction. b) Quash the Provisional Release Order dated: 25.07.2022 in file No. GEN/SIIB/MISC/29/2022-UBS-O/O-COMMRCUS-MANGALURU at Annexure-F, issued by 4th Respondent imposing conditions for provisional release of the seized vehicle is arbitrary and bad in law. c) Pass any other order or give any other direction as this Honorable Court deems fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore submitted that the impugned condition in the provisional release order dated 25.07.2022 directing the petitioner to furnish Bank Guarantee in a sum of Rs.5,68,16,000/- is illegal, arbitrary and the same deserves to be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Suriya vs. The Intelligence Officer & Others - W.P.No.6765 / 2022 dated 14.06.2022. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections, submit that the 4th respondent is fully justified in imposing condition No.2 in the provisional release order, thereby directing the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of the said Car has sought for release of the same. Pursuant to his application, an order of provisional release of goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 dated 29.12.2021 bearing order No.06/PR/OS/2021 bearing S/26- Misc-1195/2021-22/Grp.5B JNCH has been passed by the respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the seizure as well as the terms of the order of the provisional release, the instant writ petition is filed. 2. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter requires adjudication in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and in the instant writ petition, he limits his challenge only to the terms of the order of provisional release of goods under Section 110A of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner is liable to pay the sum along with the interest and penalties and further contends that the conditions are in accordance with law and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The duty as per the respondents which is recoverable is Rs.60,13,920/-. Under the circumstances, it would be reasonable to ask the petitioner to deposit 50% of the maximum duty payable and provide bank guarantee in respect of other 50% along with necessary bond as demanded by the authority apart from an undertaking that the vehicle shall not be further encumbered or alienated pending disposal of the adjudication. Hence, the following:- ORDER The conditions of release imposed in the order of provisional release of goods under Section 110A of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 4th respondent was entitled to demand the Bank Guarantee in a sum of Rs.5,68,16,000/- from the petitioner, the impugned condition in this regard deserves to be quashed. 7. Insofar as the contention urged by the respondents that the petition is not maintainable in view of alternative remedy available by way of an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act is concerned, having regard to the findings above that the impugned condition directing furnishing of Bank Guarantee is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law, merely because alternative remedy is available, the said circumstance cannot be made the basis to come to the conclusion that the present petition is not maintainable and consequently, the said contention....