2025 (10) TMI 981

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....duty on the re-determined value and without insisting furnishing of Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty Thousand only). 2. Heard Mr.A.K.Jayaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Anu Ganesan, learned Junior Panel Counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner had placed order with a supplier in China for supply of PA coated fabric and one of the consignments reached the Chennai Port and the same was also taken to the SEZ Ware House in Nandiambakkam, Chennai. The petitioner had imported 288025 SQM of PA coated fabric from China, valued at USD 11521.00. The goods were shipped under invoice dated 11.01.2025 and the Bill of Entry was filed dated 21.02.2025 and the petitioner claim for clearance o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Additional Director General (Adjudication) Vs. Its My Name Pvt., Ltd., reported in 2021 (375) E.L.T. 545 (Del.). The learned counsel further brought to the notice of this Court that the Apex Court confirmed the judgment of the Delhi High Court by dismissing the S.L.P by order dated 01.10.2020. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt 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 passed by this Court. One such order was passed in the case of Green Line Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai -IV, reported in 2016 (340) E.L.T 140 (Mad). That was also a case, which involved differential duty of non prohibited goods. Similar conditions were imposed and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court in the following terms: "8. In ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ollowing 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 guarantee/cash security towards redemption fine and penalty would be harsh as the show-cause notice is yet to be adjudicated. Therefore, we modify the condition (b) alone by directing the Importer to execute the bond for Rs. 12,12,867/-. 34. On compliance of the execution of the bond for the amount mentioned in conditions (a) and (b) supra and payment o....