TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de BL No. 039EX78873 dated September 16, 2024, BL No. 039EX81206 dated September 22, 2024, and BL No. CULVSGN2404191 dated September 19, 2024 from M/s Thai Binh BD Export Import Company Limited, Vietnam. On investigation, DRI found that the imported consignment, declared to contain 99.56 MT of Wood Powder, also included 98.8 MT of Cashew Nut (Broken) which as per Notification No. 59/2015 - 2020 dated February 21, 2023, issued by DGFT is a restricted item but permissible subject to a Minimum Import Price ('MIP') of Rs. 680 per KG. 17.10.2024 The DRI authorities issued a Seizure Memo dated October 17, 2024 under F.No. DRI/AZU/GRU/Int-S4/Saanchi Agro/2024 seizing the said goods. The alleged customs duty on the imported consignment was approximately determined to be Rs. 2.66 Crores. 11/12.11.2024 The Appellant filed BOE No. 6638143 dated November 11, 2024, BOE No. 6638163 dated November 12, 2024, and BOE No. 6638198 dated November 12, 2024. 20/22.11.2024 The Appellant deposited entire customs duty of Rs. 2.66 Crores vide Challan. 11.01.2025 The Deputy Commissioner (Group-II) of Mundra Customs, ('Adjudicating authority') allowed Provisional Relea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 4123/2017; * Shivam Marketing v/s UoI [2015 (325) E.L.T. 589 (M.P.)]; * Kuber Casting (P) Ltd. v/s UoI [2013 (297) E.L.T. 4 (P & H)]; * Aban Exim Pvt. Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Customs [2014 (309) E.L.T. 485 (Del.)]. 3.2 Without prejudice, the impugned order ought to be interpreted to mean that BG equivalent to 20% of the value of BG determined in the OIO is to be furnished. Without prejudice to the Appellant's contention that no BG was warranted in the instant case, the Appellant submits that the Impugned Order ought to be interpreted to mean that the BG amount equivalent to 20% of the BG value of Rs. 2 crore determined by the adjudicating authority in the OIO is to be furnished. Reliance is placed upon the decision in the case of MKS Glocomm LLP vs UOI [2022 (10) TMI 646]. This interpretation was supported by the following: * The Learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad expressly acknowledged that the Appellant had already executed a bond equivalent to 100% of the value of goods and has already deposited duty of Rs. 2.66 Crores, as determined in the Seizure Memo dated October 17, 2024; * The direction refers to a BG ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity. Judicial precedents cited by the Commissioner (A) also point to the direction that the OIA supports a balance between interests of both the parties (importer and revenue). 4.3 The consignment was declared as "wood powder" in 3 Bills of Lading (7 containers) pertaining to 16th September, 19th September and 22nd September, 2024. The consignment was put on hold on 12.10.2024 and were examined on 12.10.2024 & 14.10.2024. Concealment was found in all the consignments wherein "Broken cashew nuts" were found concealed behind the declared goods i.e., wood powder. The CHA stated that they did not file the B/Es for the consignments since they had taken a decision of not filing the BEs for the consignments of trading firms as consignment of one of their clients, M/s Yana Enterprises was found mis-declared by the DRI. Interestingly, Yana Enterprises was the firm of a relative of Shri Janak Bhanushali, the Director of the appellant. 4.4 The day DRI examined the goods and found mis-declaration, the importer received an email regarding wrong loading of the cargo while the BLs are issued almost one month back. Since these goods were found concealed, the goods are liable for confiscatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g for indemnity bond equal to the market value, is a justified condition as in the event of order of confiscation being passed against the petitioner, the respondent-authorities could proceed to recover the amount from the person, who has furnished the indemnity bond. Similarly, the other conditions in respect of payment of duty in cash and by Bank Guarantee are also fair and reasonable as on the basis of prima facie investigation made, the DRI could reasonably form an opinion that there is evasion of duty. Similarly, requirement of furnishing the Bank Guarantee to recover the possible fine and penalty, which can be imposed in terms of the provisions of the Statute also cannot be said to be unjustified. The conditions imposed for the provisional release of the goods vide communication dated 8-7-2008, cannot be said to be onerous, unjustified or arbitrary, which may warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 4.5 This case was upheld in Hon'ble Supreme Court also as reported in 2010 (251) E.L.T. A116 (S.C.), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in its impugned order while holding that the conditions for provisi....