Custom
TRT-2025-
Cestat-Mumbai
Date:-23-06-22
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- 0
Order Date – 23 June 2022
Facts:
- The Appellant, Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha, imported goods including memory cards and iphones which were being seized by DRI on 27th November 2011 under section 110 of Customs Act, 1962.
- Two show cause notices proposing confiscation and other detriments had been issued on 25 May 2022 by Commissioner of Customs and some of the goods disposed off by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under the procedure prescribed in section 110(1A) of Customs Act, 1962.
- According to the notices, the duty liability, arising from ‘integrated tax’ at 18% on the declared goods and of customs duty at 20%, besides cess at 10% thereof, with integrated tax at 18% on the undeclared phones amounts to ₹5,88,19,004.85 and ₹ 5,31,71,052 respectively.
- The adjudication authority denied the provisional release under section 110 A and hence the appeal has been filed.
Issue:
- Whether the denial of provisional release under section 110 A of Customs Act, 1962 in the reasonable belief of being liable to confiscation under section 111 of Customs Act, 1962?
Order:
- The authorities observed that the denial of provisional release appears not to have considered the legal framework for exercise of authority lay down in section 110 to section 126 of Customs Act, 1962 and, instead, has been sought to be justified in terms of section 150 of Customs Act, 1962. Section 150 of the Customs Act does not empower sale or disposal and justification for denial of provisional release is acceptable only if in accord with the legislative intent of section 110A of the act.
- Revenue is obligated to deter the import of any goods that the laws prohibit for preserving the health and safety of those who reside under the protection of the State and no such goods were being imported by the appellants.
- The authorities also observed that section 110A of Customs Act does not bar opportunity for provisional release except by exercise of discretionary decision on the part of the competent authority.
- Hence, the authorities allowed the provisional release upon execution of bond for value of impugned goods and furnishing revenue deposit of ₹ 5,00,00,000.
Download Case Law
