Order date – 27 June 2022

Facts – 

• The appellant, Amglo Resources Private Ltd, had imported Copper Cathodes conforming to LME Grade ― from a UAE based supplier viz., NBJ International FZ-LLC, Dubai, UAE.
• During inspection the department held that goods appear to be of Iran origin and not Zambia and issued a seizure memo dated 02.02.2022 u/s 110(1) of the Act seizing the goods under reasonable belief that the same are liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act. 
• Deputy Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tumb allowed provisional release but the same was withdrawn on the grounds that the origin of the goods is still under examination and  provisional release of such goods at this stage is premature.
• The Appellant received a letter dated 06.04.2022 from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs stating that the competent authority has allowed the provisional release of goods on executing a bond covering the full value of the seized goods and Bank Guarantee of 15% of the value of the seized goods, which was later upheld by the appellate authorities.
• Aggrieved by the order passed by commissioner (Appeal) the appellant filed an appeal.

Issue – 

• Whether the conditions implied by department to furnish a bank guarantee to the extent of 15% of value of seized goods for provisional release is justifiable?

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that once the provisional release order was passed, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Ahmadabad, had no jurisdiction under the Customs Act.
• It is important to note that the appellant never intended to avail any benefit basis the COO and were willing to pay the duty on the goods imported vide the 4 bills of entry. Further it is a settled law that an importer unless proven otherwise beyond doubt cannot be said to have any role in the issuance of a COO as the same is issued by the competent authority of the originating country.
• The Tribunal relied on T. G. Enterprise vs. Union of India [2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 17 (Guj.)] and held that the condition to direct the Appellant to furnish bank guarantee of 15% of the value of goods is arbitrary, excessive and bad in law.
• The appeal was allowed with terms of execution of Bond of full value and the appellant shall pay the Customs duty as assessed by the department at the time of provisional release of the goods.