TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 10-6-2008, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short 'the DRI') visited the office-cum-godown premises of the petitioner, and they detained the stock of imported glass valued at Rs. 23,77,513/-, even though all the documents and record pertaining to the import of glass and the payment of the customs duty was produced. Three hard disks installed on the computers in the office of the petitioner were also taken away. Vide communications dated 13-6-2008 and 30-6-2008, the petitioner requested for release of the goods provisionally, but the said requests were not acceded to. It is further pointed out that the petitioner imported another 10 containers of colour and clear foal class from Malaysia. They were received at Port of Import at Ludhiana. The bills of entry dated 18-6-2008 and 19-6-2008 were filed. The declared value of the goods was found to be higher than or equal to the DOV data and accordingly the assessed customs duty was paid. But, the goods were not released and on 28-6-2008, the DRI informed that the goods have been detained for further investigation. It was on 7-7-2008, the petitioner was informed that the goods detained are placed under seizur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f DRI under the authority and search warrants issued under the Act. During search, various records were resumed. Stocks valued at Rs. 23.70 lacs (on the rates disclosed by the petitioner's staff) were detained from the godown of the petitioner at Chandigarh, whereas the goods worth Rs. 3.22 lacs were detained from a godown at New Delhi on 10-6-2006. It has been further pointed out that the two consignments of 10 containers containing float glass imported by the petitioner vide bills of entry dated 18-6-2008 and 19-6-2008 with declared assessable value of Rs. 16,95,939/- were detained by the DRI on 25-6-2008 for further investigation. On 28-6-2008, the petitioner was informed that he may exercise the option under Section 49 of the Act to get the detained goods de-stuffed from the containers in the premises of Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Dhandario Kalan, Ludhiana. It was also pointed out that the premises of M/s. Niveda International, Kolkata, an Indentor for the petitioner, for various overseas suppliers of glass were also searched and various incriminating documents were resumed. On 7-7-2008 all the detained goods were placed under seizure under Section 110 of the Act. On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t prices have not at all been reported and fed into system. It has been pointed out that the DRI has got specific intelligence that import prices were uniformly suppressed through out the country in an organised fashion by a number of importers operating in a cartel. It is for this reason that the DOV data reflected lower import price for various types of Glass. It is further pointed out that during the course of investigation, it was prima facie observed from the resumed/seized documents that the petitioner was evading customs duty by resorting to undervaluation while importing various types of glass from different countries. 5. It is further alleged that the goods were allowed to be released provisionally by the competent authority on furnishing the necessary bonds/Bank Guarantee on the basis of evidence of actual transaction value, which in turn was calculated on the basis of evidence available with the DRI. Thus, it is alleged that the petitioner actually played fraud with the exchequer by presenting fabricated invoices and declaring less value for imports of glass from various countries to the Indian Customs Authorities at the time of clearance of the goods and the Customs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d before the import was allowed. It is also argued that the conditions of the release are fair and reasonable, keeping in view the fact that the goods are liable to be confiscated in terms of Section 111(m) of the Act. It is further contended that the conditions, as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of Customs before provisional release of the goods in terms of Section 110A of the Act, is regulated by the Departmental Instructions contained in Chapter 7 issued on 11-9-2001. The relevant extracts of the said extracts read as under:- "3. In above situations, pending the production of such documents or furnishing of such information or completion of such test or enquiry, the proper officer of Customs may order that the duty leviable on goods be assessed provisionally. The importer (or exporter), has to execute appropriate bond and furnish requisite security to the satisfaction of officer for payment of the deficiency, if any, between the duty finally assessed and duty provisionally assessed. On final assessment of duty in case of goods cleared for home consumption or exportation, the amount paid provisionally is adjusted against the duty finally assessed. If the amount so paid ....