TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rics and hold AEO status; the appellants had entered into 4 contracts, dated 23.03.2025, 28.03.2025, 29.03.2025 and 01.04.2025, with the Chinese supplier M/s Shaoxing Keqiao Mulinsheng Trading Co. Ltd., China, for import of Mix lot of polyester woven fabric with heat pressed film made of thermoplastic polyurethane rolls of assorted colours other than coated polyurethane and others. Accordingly, the goods were supplied and on the basis of invoice, packing list, bill of loading etc. 7 bills of entry were filed by the appellant importer; the goods were cleared by the EDI system. SIIB of Customs initiated inquiry into the import and have drawn 17 samples under various Panchnama dated 05.05.2025, 06.05.2025, 07.05.2025, 08.05.2025 and 09.05.2025; the samples were sent to CRCL, New Delhi. The goods were seized on 08.05.2025 and 09.05.2025 on the basis of the reports received from CRCL. The appellants, vide letter dated 16.07.2025, requested the Commissioner of Customs to release the imported goods, though provisionally, on execution of a bond without any bank guarantee looking into the status of the import of as AEO-T1 and MSME and the fact that the appellant has been importing since 199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was passed disregarding the import documents without even suspecting their authority; even when contemporaneous data was given the lowest of the values was not taken disregarding the following judgements: * Prayas Woolen (P) Ltd. Mumbai 2016 (332) ELT 376 * Dujodwala Products Ltd. 2009 (235) ELT 266 (Tri. Mumbai) * Hewlett Packard (I) Pvt Ltd. 2006 (204) ELT 585 (Tri-Bang.) * Dwarakadas G Kanjani 2001 (137) ELT 967 (Tri-Chennai) 4. Learned Counsel submits that there was no mis-declaration the declaration was correctly made in metres as required for CTH 59039090; while converting the EDI system has converted into square metres; there was no change in the quantity; converting by the system into square metres does not mean mis-declaration; the impugned order does not specify as to why the declared value under Section 14 was rejected and as to how the value was arrived proceeding sequentially as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors, 2000(122) ELT 321 (SC); the misdeclaration in respect of some bills of entry has been alleged on the basis of improper, incomplete test report without adhering to the norms; he submits that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. Products Tests Required 1. Fumigation Covers To test Fumigation Covers Fumigation retention properties, Adequate tear resistance and Light Weight 2. Water resistant Fabrics Water Proofness 3. Tarpaulin Water Repellency or Water proofness as applicable Tear resistance 4. Upholstery Materials Abrasion and tear resistance Flexibility and retention of flexibility under condition of stress and hot/cold climate Flame retardance 5. Material for footwear Flexibility waterproofness 6. Chemically resistant material Resistance to specific chemicals, such as, acids, alkalis, petroleum products ad chemicals likely to come in contact in actual use. 7. Radiation Proof Material Resistance against various radiation hazards met by (i) Medical workers and (ii) Workers in nuclear installations etc. 8. Fire Resistant Fabric Fire Resistance water proofness Rot Proofness 9. Flotation Equipment Air Proofness Waterproofness Weathering (Ozone) resistance 10. Mountaineering Equipment Lightness in weight Reasonable abrasion resistance. Adequate color brightness Resistance to weathering (oz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espite specific queries put forth by the Respondent, CRCL has failed to address to all the queries put forth by the Respondent Authorities. He submits that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the declared classification of goods, as Mixed Lot of Polyester Woven Fabric with Heat Pressed film made of TPU Rolls of Assorted Colour Other than Coated PU ODD, on the basis of the findings of the Test Reports dated 19.05.2025 and 20.05.2025. He submits that the Appellant had imported similar goods on an earlier occasion vide Bill of Entry No. 9387015 dated 23.11.2023; CRCL New Delhi refused to conduct testing claiming lack of facility for conducting tests especially "FITR Analysis"; in that case, the department had sent the samples for testing to "Textile Committee", who confirmed the declaration given by the appellants; in the impugned case, the Respondent erred in rejecting the declared classification of "Rolls of fabric of various colours" on the ground that the same are without any lamination; the findings rendered by the Respondent are based on the test results communicated by CRCL New Delhi, which are inconclusive; He submits that the reports issued by CRCL cannot be relied as they ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C vide circular No. 25/2015 dated 15.10.2015, mandates for taking services of Chartered Engineers in case of Old & Used items and not for Textiles. He relies on Techni group International Pvt Ltd. (2024) 19 Centax 226 (Tri-Mad) and R G Gupta & Co 2017 (356) ELT 470 (Tri-Chd). 8. Learned Counsel submits that the Adjudicating Authority erred ordering, submission of a Bank Guarantee amounting to Rs 9,12,48,585, to secure Differential Customs Duty amounting to Rs. 4,15,94,117 and Redemption Fine & Penalty that may be imposed on the imported goods; the condition of Bank Guarantee cannot be imposed on the Appellant for the reason that no Show Cause Notice and adjudication order have been issued; Respondent placed reliance on the Circular No. 35/2017; the said Circular has been struck down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Its My Name Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (375) ELT 545 (Del.); the High Court's order was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submits that imposition of Bank Guarantee is bad in law as held in the following judgments. * N C Alexender (2024) 23 Centax 153 (S.C.) * Indusina Exim L.L.P (2024) 16 CENTAX 118 (Bom.) * Shanus Impex (2024) 15 Centax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny property or fixed assets to that extent. 11. Learned Special Counsel for Revenue, rebuts the reliance of the Counsel for the appellants on various cases and submits that the facts of the various cases are different from the present case; in the impugned case, the importer has tried to fraudulently import goods of different description in the guise of stock lot, with intent to evade payment of customs duty; accordingly, provisional release order has been issued to cover the differential duty along-with fine/penalty. He further differentiates the cases relied upon by the appellants as follows. (i). the cases of N.C. Alexender (2024) 23 Centax 153 (S.C.); Indusina Exim L.L.P (2024) 16 Centax 118 (Bom.); Shanu's Impex (2024) 15 Centax 129 (Del.); S.K. Overseas (2024) 15 Centax 150 (Del.); Prenda Creations Pvt Ltd (CWP No. 9301 of 2023) (P&H HC) and Nakshatra Overseas (CWP No. 441 of 2023) (P&H HC) deal with release of Perishable goods and as such not applicable to the facts of the case; further, the case of Shanu's Impex (2024) 15 Centax 129 (Del.), the security deposit demanded was set aside on the ground that the impugned order fixed the value of the bond and deposit i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (234) ELT 203 (P&H) upheld in 2010 (251) ELT A116 (SC) * Zest Aviation Pvt Ltd. 2013 (289) ELT 243 (DEL) * Maggie Marketing Pvt Ltd 2019 (366) ELT 70 (DEL) * Unik Traders 2019 (367) E.L.T. 353 (Mad.) * Malabar Diamond Gallery Pvt Ltd 2016 (341) E.L.T. 65 (Mad.) * Classic Interiors Customs Appeal No. 51454 of 2022- CESTAT-New Delhi 13. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The appellants imported goods declared as Stock Lot of fabrics laminated with TPU, under four sales contracts dated 23.03.2025, 28.03.2025, 29.03.2025 and 01.04.2025, from a Chinese supplier and filed the bills of entry. On the basis of an intelligence received, revenue intercepted the consignments and have drawn samples. On examination, it was observed that the only the goods in the front rows of the container appeared to be "Rolls of fabric with a thin plastic film laminated on one side of the fabric as declared and that these rolls were used to conceal "Rolls of fabric of various colours without any lamination". On testing the impugned goods, CRCL gave a report to the effect that the goods were other than declared. It appeared to the revenue that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... guaranteed amount be credited to Govt. account by the bank on its own) of Rs. 9,12,48,585/- (Rupees Nine crore twelve lakh forty-eight thousand five hundred eighty-five only) as security covering payment of any possible future liabilities of Duty(ies)/penalties/ fines payable against the said goods. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants submits that certificates issued by the supplier placed on record were not considered. Issues raised the appellants vis a vis (i) Improper sampling process; (ii) Test Memo not provided; (iii) Incomplete and leading Test Memo Format; and (iv) legal and policy violations etc. were not addressed. The appellants further submit that the impugned order was passed disregarding the import documents without even suspecting their authority; the value of the goods was ascertained by a Chartered Engineer, who was not either academically or professionally competent to value the goods in question; while taking the contemporaneous value for adopting, the adjudicating authority did not consider the lowest of the prices; similar goods are being imported in other Ports of the country and Revenue has not t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Fabrics partially coated or partially covered with plastics and bearing designs resulting from these treatments (usually chapters 50 to 55, 58 or 60) (5) Plates, sheets or strip of cellular plastics, combined with textile, fabric, where the textile fabric is present merely for reinforcing purposes (Chapter 39); or (6) Textile products of heading 58.11; .................................................... 16.1. Explanatory notes to HSN under 59.03 provide that 59.03 Textile fabric impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, other than those of heading 59.02. 5903.10- With poly (vinyl chloride) 5903.20- With polyurethane 5903.90- Other This heading covers textile fabrics which have been impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics (e.g. poly (vinyl chloride)) Such products are classified here whatever their weight per m2 and whatever the nature of the plastic component (compact or cellular), provided, (1) That, in case of impregnated, coated or covered fabrics, the impregnation, coating or covering can be seen with the naked eye otherwise than by a resulting change in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we are of the considered opinion that it will be prejudicial and more so, it would appear predetermined to say that the Bank Guarantee ordered should be enough to cover the liabilities in the form of fine and penalty that may be imposed on completion of the adjudication. Therefore, we find that the issue lies in a narrow compass to decide whether the conditions put forth by the adjudicating authority for provisional release are justified in the facts and circumstances of the case or they need moderation or revision. 19. We find that both the appellants and Revenue placed reliance on a number of cases they want to rely upon. The appellants rely on set of cases where either the Circular No. 35/2017-Customs, dated 168-2017 was struck down or where in it was ordered that conditions of provisional release must not be harsh to destroy the importer. We find that the learned Special Counsel for the appellants submits that the cases relied upon by the appellants are distinguishable on the facts of the case and submits that the Adjudicating authority himself has dealt in detail about the said circular. We find that Learned adjudicating authority though accepts that though the Hon'ble Delh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the goods and the amount of the Bank Guarantee. The calculated amount for the bank guarantee would be substantial and may almost constitute 70-80% of the value of the goods itself. The imposition of conditions being a discretionary matter, in the facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and fair that apart from the Bond which has been directed, the Bank Guarantee to the tune of 30% of the differential duty be furnished by the Petitioner. Ordered accordingly. 22. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of 2015 (324) E.L.T. 149 (P & H) Gaurav Electronics held that 5. The petitioner has paid Rs. 30 lacs as demanded and has undertaken to pay the entire amount of differential duty as may be determined and put up on the department's website. The respondents have demanded a bank guarantee as a precondition to the release of goods, apparently to protect the interest of the revenue if any further amount is found due from the petitioner at the time of final adjudication. While considering the desirability of demanding a bank guarantee, a Division Bench held in Kuber Casting (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2013 (297) E.L.T. 4 (P & H) that the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts and circumstances of the case reveals that the petitioner has already paid Rs. 5,00,000/- and is also ready to furnish personal/surety bond equivalent to the declared value of the goods. The respondents have not pointed out any circumstance which may raise an apprehension or presumption that the petitioner will not discharge its liability qua any amount that may be assessed at the time of final adjudication. 8. Consequently, we quash the condition (b) requiring the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee of 10% amount of the declared FOB value. The petitioner shall furnish personal/surety bond and undertaking that in the eventuality of any other amount found due, it would discharge its liability, without any protest or demure subject, however, to its right to file an appeal. The goods if not released, be released to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is clarified that any observation made hereinbefore shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy. 25. We find that this Bench in the case of Shanus Impex and M/s S.K. Overseas, vide Final order Nos.60002-60003/2024 dated 04.01.202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bond for 100% of the value of the goods. Since the respondents do not appear to be inclined to follow the aforementioned orders binding order of the Supreme Court, and are compelling exporters and importers to approach this Court every time for relaxation of the conditions imposed for the provisional release of goods, the Court is of the view that relegating the petitioner to a statutory remedy would not be efficacious. 8. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Printwell Offset (supra) held that: 5. In the light of the fact that the principal relief prayed for in this petition has not been pressed, it is not necessary to enter into the merits of the impugned order dated 2-12-2015 withdrawing the redemption issued to the petitioner. However, consequent to the said order, as on date, the petitioner's redemption stands withdrawn. Resultantly, the petitioner firm would be required to fulfil the export obligation in terms of the EPCG scheme authorization granted to it. Since the first part of the export obligation was to be completed within a period of four years, it appears that the petitioner still has time to fulfil the export obligation. As rightly submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts are not comparable as the cases, referred to, were regarding seizure of non-perishable goods and goods alleged to have been smuggled. To that extent, we find that the cases cited by the Authorized Representative cannot be relied upon. In the instant case, the goods have been cleared by the jurisdictional Customs Authorities after satisfying themselves about the conditions of import and the same were seized by DRI at a later date; the goods are of perishable nature and the exact origin of the goods is yet to be ascertained. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the following conditions would suffice in the interest of justice: (i) The importers shall furnish a Bond covering the full value of goods and bind themselves to pay the differential duty along with fine, penalty and interest that may be levied on adjudication of the case. (ii) The importers shall furnish Bank Guarantee equal to 30% of the alleged differential duty. 26. In view of the above, we find that while the adjudicating authority is well within his right to impose conditions for provisional release of the goods, the said conditions should not be so i....