2025 (3) TMI 698

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Allegation is that certain quantity of goods is chick peas which were got cleared from the Customs port by the party on 27.09.2024 by filing of bill of entry and which were to be processed for exports, were later on seized by DRI on 28.11.2024 when officers visited to check the status of the party including his manufacturing capability etc. The Goods have a short life being perishable in nature. Therefore, there are correctly covered under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 and hence, are eligible for provisional release. It was alleged that certain quantity of material was also sold in the domestic market, on which after DRI search, duty has been paid by the appellant as stated by the learned Counsel. 2. The Learned Counsel for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... fer reasons to be recorded in writing. increase or decrease the amount of security deposit as indicated above. 3. Learned Counsel points out that the Commissioner has adopted the reasoning of the Board's Circular only and has worked out the bank guarantee which is beyond 100% duty and has kept in mind some component of penalty, redemption fine etc. also. As per the learned counsel there is no reason given as is the requirement of para 2.3 of the Board Circular. Therefore, the learned Adjudicating authority has simply yielded to the board circular and has not exercised his own mind as is the judicial requirement. In support of this contention, he relies upon para 19 of the impugned Provisional release order which reads as follows:- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dge of the adjudicating authority but has been conveniently ignored in his reasoning. He pleads that once the goods are released and exported, not only the country will earn foreign exchange but also there will be no duty element. This will clearly absolve the party from the onerous burden of duty on imported goods. The absence of name of the supporting manufacturer in previous authorisation will also become procedural violation only, if these developments are taken in to account. 6. The learned AR on the other hand pleads that the case was made by the DRI which found the violation of conditions of the Advance Authorisation Scheme by the importer, since the party was mentioned as having manufacturing capability which on verification, tur....