The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has directed the provisional release of seized goods subject to hypothecation of immovable property.
The bench of Somesh Arora (Judicial Member) and Satendra Vikram Singh (Technical Member) has directed that the party shall offer a hypothecation as offered to us, security of any immovable property in the name of the appellant party which shall remain with the department, till the time export sale proceeds are realised. The valuation of the above property shall be more than the amount of bank guarantee determined by the adjudicating authority vide impugned order dated 30.01.2025. Further, the said immovable property should be free from any loan or hypothecation.
The appellant/assessee has sought the provisional release of the goods which were seized by the DRI for violation of certain provisions of advance authorisation scheme. The DRI is still investigating the matter.
It was alleged that certain quantity of goods is chick peas which were got cleared from the Customs port by the party on 27.09.2024 by filing of bill of entry and which were to be processed for exports, were later on seized by DRI on 28.11.2024 when officers visited to check the status of the party including his manufacturing capability etc.
Read More: Service Tax Can’t Be Demanded On Generator Sales Citing Installation: CESTAT
The Goods have a short life being perishable in nature. Therefore, they are correctly covered under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 and hence, are eligible for provisional release. It was alleged that a certain quantity of material was also sold in the domestic market, on which after DRI search, duty has been paid by the appellant as stated by the learned Counsel.
The appellant contended that the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla while ordering provisional release of the goods, has ordered the party to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 1,06,56,771/- and a bond equal to the value of the goods i.e. of Rs. 2,42,19,936/- for undertaking to pay, the duty, fine or penalty as may be imposed by the adjudicating authority. In the instant case, the party is aggrieved by the requirement of onerous bank guarantee which imposes financial burden on him.
The tribunal noted that the interest of revenue as well as of the party needs to be protected and balance between the two needs to maintained so that the business can continue and the envisaged transaction of export through the supporting manufacturer is completed in the interest of the Nation.
The tribunal directed the provisional release of the seized goods within a week of the party submitting the requisite documents.
Case Details
Case Title: Gurukrupan Agro Limited Versus Customs Commissioner
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 10311 of 2025- DB
Date: 12.03.2025
Counsel For Appellant: Vikas Mehta
Counsel For Respondent: Sanjay Kumar
