TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....direction to the respondents to release the goods on execution of Simple Bond for the Differential Duty on the redetermined value and also on execution of Simple Bond towards the adjudication levies, if any. 2. Heard Mr.A.K.Jayaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.Arvind Srevatsa, learned Junior Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3. 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 71475 SQM., of PVC Coated Fabrics from China, valued at total USD 8,577.00. The goods were shipped under invoice dated 31.12.2024 and the Bill o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. The petitioner would further submit that the subject goods were freely importable goods and cheaper in price. He also added that identical goods were already assessed and released by the Customs Officers, by accepting the value declared in the Bill of Entry. 9. 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, 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mposed against the petitioner, there must be some security available with the Department for recovering the same. Hence, it was contended that there is absolutely no reason for interfering with the provisional release order. 12. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 13. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....22 (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 guarantee/cash security towards redemption fine and penalty would be harsh as the show-cause notice is yet to be adjudicated. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for confiscation in terms of section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the subject goods are hereby placed under seizure under the provisions of Section 110(1) ibid. Further, your attention is drawn to the provisions of provisional release of the seized goods provided under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the guidelines issued through Board's Circular No.35/2017 - Customs, dated 16.08.2017." 17. 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: ....