Commissioner of Customs Vs B.P. Wire Industry (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court admitted a customs appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, in Commissioner of Customs vs. B.P. Wire Industry. The appeal, filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, challenges the CESTAT order dated 30 June 2025, which favored B.P. Wire Industry in relation to the provisional release of seized goods.
The Department argued that the Tribunal’s Single Member did not properly apply Section 129C(4) of the Customs Act and failed to consider relevant judicial precedents. Reliance was placed on the Delhi High Court judgment in Additional Director General (Adjudication) vs. Its My Name Pvt. Ltd., 2021 (375) E.L.T. 545 (Del.), where the provisional release of seized gold and silver was upheld subject to a bond covering the full value and a bank guarantee of ₹10 crore with an auto-renewal clause. The Supreme Court, in a Special Leave Petition against the same judgment, later enhanced the bank guarantee requirement to ₹15 crore [2021 (375) E.L.T. A160 (S.C.)].
The appellant also cited Shanus Impex vs. Union of India, (2024) 15 Centax 129 (Del.), where the Delhi High Court followed the Its My Name precedent. The Department contended that these rulings establish a stricter framework for provisional release, which the CESTAT did not apply while deciding in favor of B.P. Wire Industry.
