TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 636
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rection to the second respondent to release 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. 8,50,000/-. (Rupees Eight lakhs fifty thousand only). 2. Heard Mr.A.K.Jayaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Siddarth, 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 340 cartons 24610 SQM of PVC Coated Fabrics from China, valued at USD 5828.30. The goods were shipped under invoice dated 07.12.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also give an undertaking to fully comply with the adjudication out come 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 14.08.2025, issued by the second respondent, has approached this Court. 8. The 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itional duty, fine or penalty is imposed against 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 14.08.2025. 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 su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Division Bench order of this Court in the case of 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Guarantee(BG) for Rs. 8,50,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs fifty thousand only) 16. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances 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. 27,00,000/-(Rupees twenty seven lakhs only) and d) The petitioner shall also execut....