Order Date – 17 June 2022

Facts:

• The Appellant, M/s Amglo Resources Pvt Ltd., entered into negotiations with M/s NBJ International FZ-LLC, Dubai for supply of ‘copper cathode’ and imported four consignments at ICD, Tumb and one at Jawahar Custom House, Nhava Sheva. 
• For assessment and clearance, the bill, invoice, bill of lading and certificate of origin were filed and the Appellants claimed that the goods were of Zambian origin. 
• On investigation the goods were found to be Iranian origin and were misdeclared sufficed for them to seize the consignments under section 110 of Customs Act, 1962. 
• The authorities declared that the goods will be released upon execution of bond for five times the value of the goods and furnishing of bank guarantee for 15 percent of the value of the goods.  
• Aggrieved, the Appellants has filed an appeal.
  
  Issues:
• Whether the terms for provisional release, bond for ₹ 44,68,97,008 backed by bank guarantee totaling ₹ 10,61,02,354, to regain possession of goods is justifiable?

Order :

• The Authorities relied on Pushpak Lakhani v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi, and held there can be no golden formula for imposition of fine and it is here that the discretion of the authority is called for. Moreover, appeal against adjudication orders no longer require deposit of the full extent of the detriment laid at the door of the importer; section 129E prescribes the extent of pre-deposit. 
• They also said that the extent of mandatory pre-deposit should, in most cases, be the benchmark for quantification of reasonable security.  
• Therefore, the provisional release of the seized goods was permitted subject to furnishing of bond for the value of the goods and execution of bank guarantee of ₹ 50,00,000. 
• The appeal was accordingly disposed off.