TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1274
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods passed under Section 110-A of the Customs Act but however according to the petitioner the conditions imposed by the fourth respondent are arbitrary and onerous. 2. The petitioner contends that erroneously by total non-application of mind, the respondents have arbitrarily imposed onerous conditions by relying upon Chapter VIII of the Customs Tariff Act and DGFT Notification, which, according to the petitioner, are not applicable to the petitioner's imported cargo. According to the petitioner, the cargo imported by him is unfit for human consumption as it is going to be used as an animal feed and therefore, customs duty cannot be levied under Chapter VIII of the Customs Tariff Act, which applies only for edible nuts and not for nonedibl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 18,30,000/- approximately. Whereas under the impugned order, the respondents have imposed onerous conditions by directing the petitioner to give a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) and a bond for a sum of Rs. 1,76,80,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Six Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in similar cases involving imposition of onerous conditions by the Customs Department arbitrarily, this Court had entertained writ petitions and has given benefit to the importer by relaxing the onerous conditions. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon various authorities. He would further submit that the circ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d must not be arbitrary and should be reasonable after giving due consideration to the nature of the cargo as well as the previous antecedents of the importer with regard to the imports made earlier by the very same importer involving identical goods. 7. The petitioner has raised various contentions before this Court in support of their case that the conditions imposed for the grant of provisional release under the impugned order is onerous. They include the following :- (a) minimum import price cannot be fixed for the subject cargo imported by the petitioner, since the Customs Tariff Act specifically provides a Chapter for animal feed, which has not stipulated minimum import price. According to the petitioner, the subject cargo ought to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s conditions have been imposed arbitrarily by total non-application of mind. (d) as seen from the impugned order dated 03.06.2025, the contentions of the petitioner as raised in this writ petition have not been considered. No personal hearing was also afforded to the petitioner before imposing such onerous conditions that too, when the value of the goods is only Rs. 18.30,000/- approximately. According to the petitioner, the respondents ought to have granted personal hearing to the petitioner and ought to have granted an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation as contended in this writ petition and only thereafter, the respondents ought to have imposed conditions for granting provisional release of goods under Section 110-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Circular has been quashed, the said Circular cannot be relied upon by the respondents for imposing conditions for the grant of provisional release under Section 110- A of the Customs Act. 11. All the aforesaid factors have necessarily got to be considered afresh by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as submitting his explanation for relaxation of onerous conditions imposed under the impugned order. The goods in question are agricultural rejected nuts and used as an animal feed, which are perishable items. The goods had arrived at Chennai port on 29.11.2024. In view of the fact that the subject goods are perishable in nature and the subject goods had arrived at Chennai port in the month of November 20....