TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ease the goods without insisting for payment of duty on the re-determined value and without insisting furnishing of Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/-. (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) 2. Heard Mr.A.K.Jayaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Pooja Jain, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner had placed order with a supplier in China for supply of PVC Coated Fabrics and one of the consignment reached the Chennai Port and the same was also taken to the SEZ Ware House in Nandiampakkam, Chennai. The petitioner had imported 69903 SQM., viz., 793 Rolls of PVC Coated Fabrics from China, valued at USD 9,786.42. The goods were shipped under invoice dated 02.01.2025 and the Bill of Entry was filed dated 08....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the adjudication outcome and pay any Additional Duty, Fine or Penalty that may be imposed in the said proceedings. 7. The petitioner aggrieved by the impugned provisional release order dated 21.07.2025, issued by the second respondent, has approached this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisional release order was issued by placing reliance upon the guidelines issued under CBIC Circular No.35/2017-Customs, dated 16.08.2017 and that this circular already became a subject matter of challenge before the Delhi High Court and it was struck down as contrary to Section 110A of the Customs Act and was held to be void and unenforceable in law. To substantiate this submission, the learned counsel relied upon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner, there must be some security available with the Department for recovering the same and therefore, the petitioner has to necessarily execute the Bank Guarantee as was directed in the provisional release order dated 21.07.2025. Hence, it was contended that there is absolutely no reason for interfering with the provisional release order. 11. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 12. This Court is not dealing with the merits of the case since what has been put to challenge is the provisional release order and that too questioning some of the onerous conditions. While undertaking this exercise, it will suffice to take note of some of the earlier orders ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Commissioner of Customs and Others vs. Sri Venkateshwara Paper Boards Rep.by its General Manager Mr. L. Barath reported in 2022 (379) E.L.T 310 (Mad), which involved prohibited goods and the writ petition was disposed of in the following terms: "32. We have perused the order dated 29.12.2020 permitting provisional release of the cargo, subject to the following conditions: (a) execution of a bond for Rs. 34,65,334/-, (b) production of cash security/bank guarantee for Rs. 12,12,867/- towards redemption fine and penalty, and (c) payment of duty of Rs. 9,43,411/-. 33. We find nothing unreasonable about conditions (a) and (c), however condition (b) is concerned directing the Importer to furnish Bank....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case and considering the grounds raised in the writ petition and also taking into consideration of the earlier orders passed by this Court, this Court is inclined to modify the conditions imposed in the provisional release order as follows: a) The petitioner is directed to remit the entire duty as declared by them. b) The petitioner is directed to pay 50% of the differential duty for the total value arrived at by the Department. c) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 39,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs only) and d) The petitioner shall also execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) instead of Bank Guarantee. On compliance, the goods shall be released b....