2026 (8) TMI 1534

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onditions, which according to the appellant are onerous. 2. Brief facts are that the appellant has imported goods declared as Interlining Textile Fabrics in 17 containers covered by various Bills of Entry filed through SEZ Unit M/s.Malj Lines Pvt Ltd (IEC: AAMCM1178L) situated inside the FTWZ, M/s. NDR Infrastructure Private Limited, Nadiambakkam, Ponneri Taluk, Chennai-600120. The said goods were placed under seizure under provisions of section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi, under various seizure memos. The seizure memos indicate that it appeared to DRI that the said goods are appropriately classifiable under CTH 54076900 on the basis of CRCL Tetst Reports, as against the declared....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ave rendered the facility of release of the goods, illusory, and to this end, the impugned order be set aside with directions to pass a reasoned order of provisional release after hearing the appellant. It is also stated that the Show Cause Notice in this matter has already been issued and though the appellant had participated in a personal hearing, the authority is yet to pass an order. 5. Shri. N. Satyanarayana, Ld. Authorised Representative appearing for the Respondent submits that the impugned provisional release order has stipulated conditions that are reasonable and does not warrant any interference. 6. We have heard both sides and perused the material available on record. 7. We find that the right to request for re-test is a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice by adverting to the contentions raised in an application seeking provisional release and afford the applicant an opportunity of being heard. 9. As observed supra, the impugned order does not refer to the appellant's request for provisional release. On the contrary, in this case, it is the contention of the appellant that in its letter dated 19.07.2025, the appellant has indicated that the re-test it has sought is pending and evidently the impugned order does not reflect any consideration of the said request. The ld. Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention to his letter dated 20.08.2025 annexed to the appeal, which is subsequent to the impugned order, detailing the reasons why the appellant considers that the conditions are oner....