Aban Exim Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs

Issue notice. Mr. P.C. Aggarwal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of first respondent and Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate on behalf of second respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by the imposition of what are alleged to be onerous conditions for provisional release of goods in terms of the Regulations made in that regard in 2011. The petitioner had imported maintenance free batteries; it had deposited the customs duty on the declared value, which amounts to Rs. 10.09 lakhs. The DRI seized the goods on 10-9-2013. At that stage, the petitioner had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court had on 28-2-2014 directed the Commissioner of Customs to pass orders on the application for provisional release of the goods.

Pursuant to the directions of the Court, the Commissioner made an order on 27-3-2014. The material part of this order is extracted below:

"In this regard, it is informed that the competent authority has allowed provisional release of the goods covered under Bills of Entry No. 3233829 and 3233502 both dated 10-9-2013 seized by DRI, DZU subject to following conditions:

(1) Payment of differential duty amount of Rs. 12,15,577/-.

(2) Execution of Bond for re-determined value of the seized goods, i.e., Rs. 84,79,376/-. Bond should remain valid up to the finalization of case and should have self renewal clause.

(3) Execution of Bank Guarantee of Rs. 30,00,000/- to cover fine and penalty on the seized goods. Bank Guarantee should remain valid up to the finalization of case and should have self renewal clause.

(4) Solvency Certificate.

(5) Undertaking of the importer that identity and quality of the goods will not be disputed.

(6) MRP stickers should be affixed on RSP items before clearance of the goods.

You should comply with all the above said conditions of provisional release of seized goods at the earliest".

It is contended that having regard to the stipulations in Regulation 2(2) of the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011 which requires deposit of 20% of the duty amount, the conditions spelt out in the present case are unreasonable and excessive.

The Counsel for the Revenue submits that there is no justification for intervention by this Court in writ proceedings and that the order is appealable.

As is evident from a reading of the impugned order, over and above the duly paid, i.e. Rs. 10.09 lakhs, the Commissioner has insisted upon execution of a bond for the re-determined value of the goods, i.e., Rs. 84,79,376/-. In addition, he has insisted upon furnishing a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 30 lakhs and payment of differential duty of Rs. 12,15,577/-. Under normal circumstances, this Court would have relegated to the petitioner to the remedy of appeal to the CESTAT. However, we are of the opinion that since the petitioner had already approached this Court and having regard to the nature of the goods and the order, this Court is of the view that the conditions are excessive, in the circumstances, the goods are directed to be released upon the petitioner furnishing differential duty and on furnishing a bond for Rs. 20 lakhs. Upon compliance with these directions, the goods are directed to be released.

The writ petition stands disposed of along with all the pending applications, in the above terms. Order dasti.