Order date – 11 November 2022

 Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s K.L. International has imported 1272.050 MT. dry dates (CTH 08041030) having declared assessable value of Rs. 4,08,17,507/- vide Bill of entry dated 04.11.2021 filed at Pipavav by allegedly mis-declaring the country of origin.
• The imported goods (i.e. Dry Dates) were declared to be an UAE origin whereas as per the intelligence, the said imported goods were of Pakistani Origin. As per Notification No. 05/2019-Cus dated 16.02.2019, Customs duty @ 200% was to be imposed on Pakistani Origin dry dates and was to be classified under CTH 9806000.
• Accordingly the goods are seized by the Superintendent (SIIB) Customs House. Upon request of the appellant that the goods are edible items approved by CRCL/FSSAI, are perishable in nature the same was allowed for provisional release of the goods upon execution of Bond covering the full value of seized goods and Bank Guarantee or cash deposit.
• Aggrieve appellant had filed an appeal

Issue –

• Whether the seized dry dates imported by importer are of Pakistan origin or UAE origin? Whether the conditions for provisional release of goods are in order?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that the contention of department is that the packing bags bear the name of some Pakistani Company. Therefore, the goods are of Pakistan origin. In this regard, it finds that as per the facts all the bags do not bear the name of Pakistani Company. It is also found that the bags do not bear name of any dates manufacturer Company or dates supplier of Pakistan. All the documents submitted by the appellant show that the goods are of UAE origin.
• However, the investigations are under process, therefore on the basis of investigation and outcome of the adjudication, it can be finally ascertained that whether the goods imported by the appellant is of Pakistan origin or UAE origin. Therefore, at present considering the stage of investigation only a prima facie view can be drawn.
• It finds that the Appellant has been required to execute a bond for full value of the seized goods. According to the Appellant, they are not challenging this condition and Appellant is willing to execute the bond for the same as required by the provisional release order dated 22-03-2022. The actual grievance is with regard to the condition which requires the Appellant to provide security in the form of a bank guarantee or cash deposit for a sum of 12 crores.
• Tribunal was of the view that the ends of justice will be met when provisional release of the goods is allowed on execution of bond for 100% value of seized imported goods with Bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 1 crore and an payment of duty applicable on the import of dry dates of UAE origin. 
• Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered the provisional release of the seized goods on the aforesaid condition. 
• Appeal is allowed without influence the revenue’s investigation and adjudication of the case.