Case Law Details
Amglo Resources Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Custom (NS-III) (CESTAT Mumbai)
Held that para 2 of Circular 35/2017-Cus is clearly contrary to Section 110 A and is, consequently, void and unenforceable at law. It is not permissible for the CBEC, by executive fiat, to incorporate limitations, on provisional release of seized goods, which find no place in the parent statutory provision, i.e. Section 110 A of the Act.
Facts-
The appellant, Amglo Resources Pvt Ltd, entered into negotiations with M/s NBJ International FZ-LLC, Dubai for the supply of ‘copper cathode’ conforming to LME Grade “A”. In pursuance thereof, imported four consignments at ICD, Tumb, and one at Jawahar Custom House, Nhava Sheva. The importer had been intimated by the supplier that these were of Zambian origin and, in due course, had been furnished with a certificate which was, in turn, produced at the two places of import.
The investigators concluded that the goods are of Iranian origin and seize the consignments on 2nd February 2022 u/s. 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods were ordered to be released provisionally upon execution of a bond for five times the value of the goods and furnishing of a bank guarantee for 15 percent of the value of the goods. On appeal before the Tribunal against the terms of provisional release, it was held that bond for value of goods and bank guarantee for ₹1,00,00,000 should suffice for the importer to regain the possession of the goods.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
