TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....placed orders for import of "Polyester Coated Fabric (Polymeric Compound) vide commercial invoices dt.16.08.2022 for approximate quantity of 281487.10 sq.mtrs for USD 33,778.45 and USD 11,049.50 for USD 13,325.94. The appellant filed Bill of Entry dated 04.09.2022 for clearance of the goods declaring the details as per the invoices, packing list and bill of lading provided by the supplier. The officers of DRI examined the consignment on 19.10.2022 and samples were drawn from both the consignment to send for testing. 3. Test reports were received from the Textile Committee, Chennai which reported the goods pertaining to Bill of Entry No.2299539 dt.04.09.2022 to be 'woven fabrics of varieties (i) dyed polyester with modified twill and (ii) d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heir overseas supplier and was informed that due to mistake wrong consignments were loaded from their factory. The said supplier also offered that the appellant either accept goods or re-export the same back to the supplier. 6. The appellant then vide letter dated 13.11.2022 made a request for provisional release of the goods. The appellant did not receive any reply. As there was no decision passed on the request and the department having re-determined the assessable value, it was unviable for the appellant to accept the offer of supplier to get the goods released for home consumption. The appellant then vide letter dated 10.12.2002 requested the department to permit to re-export the goods. 7. The adjudicating authority vide letter dt. 09....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel relied on the CBEC Circular No.22/2004-Cus. dt. 03.03.2004 to argue that in the matter of classification dispute, the consignment should be allowed to be cleared on provisional basis, unless the goods are prohibited. The Ld. Counsel also relied on the following decisions: (i) Rajkamal Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC Kandla - 2019 (370) ELT 353 (Tri.-Ahmedabad) (ii) Zip Zap Exim (P) Ltd. Vs UOI 2018 (364) ELT 26 (Guj.) (iii) B. Khokhani & Co. Vs CC Chennai 2015 (320) ELT 189 (Mad.) (iv) Kausalya Impex Vs Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2002 (140) ELT 66 (Mad.) 12. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant has undertaken not to dispute the classification, the description, the value, the quanti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ituation, we are of the view that the department has no need of the goods for the purpose of adjudication. By keeping the goods under seizure it is nobody's gain. The discretion for provisional release of the goods is legally provided under Section 110 of Customs Act and the same should be exercised lawfully and of course with safeguard of the Revenue's interest. If in each and every case the goods is not allowed to be released provisionally the purpose of Section 110 which is for provisional release will become redundant. The adjudicating authority heavily relied upon the decision of Larger Bench in denying provisional release in case of A.K. Jewellers (supra). On reading of the said judgment we find that in the said judgment it was not he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....guarantee as deems fit in accordance with law. In the present case the appellant's prayer is for provisional release for re-export of the goods and not for home consumption. We do not find any reason why the re-export of the goods can be denied particularly when the same is not going to adversely affect the adjudication process of the case. As per the above discussion we are of the view that the provisional release of the goods for re-export can be allowed subject to the reasonable measures for safeguarding the Revenue. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed. Since, appellant has already suffered huge amount of demurrage charges and the same is recurring, in the interest of justice, the adjudicating authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....take action against the importer, I do not think that there is any impediment in directing the re-export of the goods. The petitioner, would however, give an undertaking and personal bond, to subject themselves to any action that the respondents may initiate and also to bind themselves to the ultimate adjudication, of course subject to the right to challenge the said order as per the provisions of the Act. 22. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as prayed for. Consequently W.M.P. No. 1769 of 2001 is closed." 18. As already discussed above, the goods in the present case are freely importable and not prohibited goods. The appellant has undertaken not to contest the classification, description or quantity of the goods. The appellant ha....