Tribunal can direct provisional release of seized gold, jewelry lies

Additional Director General (Adjudication) Vs Its My Name Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)

Conclusion: Tribunal’s power and jurisdiction of  hearing an appeal against an order of provisional release was coequal with the power exercised by the adjudicating authority. Tribunal had the power to direct provisional release of gold jewellery, seized as well as to fix the terms.

Held: In the present case,  the gold was imported, seeking exemption from payment of duty under the Advance Authorisation scheme and the Exhibition Export scheme. Show Cause Notice issued to assessee-company by the ADG, DRI, to, does not propose any duty demand, but seeks, instead, to confiscate the seized gold, gold jewellery and silver. The total value of the said gold, gold jewellery and silver had been reckoned, in the Show Cause Notice, to be ₹ 28,23,82,357/–. ADG, DRI, rejected the request, of assessee-company, for provisional release of the seized gold, gold jewellery, and silver by opining that it would be premature to arrive at any conclusion, about the provisional release of seized goods, before completion of adjudication proceedings. CESTAT permitted provisional release of gold jewellery, seized at the Indira Gandhi International Airport and of gold, gold pieces, gold dust, gold jewelry, and silver, seized from the workshop/office premises of assessee-company. Authority contended that the Tribunal erred in allowing the provisional release of the seized gold, gold jewelry, and silver. It was held that the power and jurisdiction of Tribunal, hearing an appeal against an order of provisional release, was coequal with the power exercised by the adjudicating authority. Tribunal, therefore, had the power to direct provisional release, as well as to fix the terms thereof. In the present case, no question of substitution, by Tribunal, of its view, for the discretion of the adjudicating authority, arose, as the adjudicating authority, i.e. ADG, DRI, vide his order dated 4^th October, 2019, never proceeded to fix any terms for provisional release, but held, instead, that it would be premature to arrive at any conclusion, about provisional release of the seized goods, before completion of adjudication proceedings. Tribunal held that this view was palpably untenable, and amounted to a complete negation of Section 110A. Needless to say, there should be no misuse or illegal diversion of the gold, gold jewellery and silver, being provisionally released to assessee. For this purpose, the premises of assessee would be kept open for inspection by the appellant, at all points of time, and all utilization/sale of the gold, gold jewellery or silver should be duly accounted for.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT

1. This appeal, at the instance of the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) (hereinafter referred to as “the ADG, DRI”), assails Final Order No. 51470/2019, dated 13^th November, 2019, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “CESTAT”) in Customs Appeal No. 52593 of 2019 which, in turn, was preferred, before the learned Tribunal against Order-in-Original, dated 4^th October, 2019 passed by the appellant.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.