Rocktek Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) (Delhi High Court)
Delhi HC directs to furnish bank guarantee of 30% of differential duty for provisional release of seized goods
Delhi High Court held that imposition of condition in case of provisional release of seized goods is discretionary and hence directed furnishing of bank guarantee to the tune of 30% of the differential duty instead of 130%.
Facts- The Petitioner imported self-drilling bars against four bills of Entry. The said goods were seized by the Customs Department on the ground that they were wrongly classified by the Petitioner under Entry No. 82.07 instead of 73.04 of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System classification.
Vide order dated 29th August, 2024, the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi provisional release of seized goods subject to furnishing of UT Bond equal to assessable value and Bank Guarantee of 130% of the deferential duty.
The Petitioner is seeking to challenge these onerous conditions of provisional release imposed by the Customs Department. Hence, the present petition.
Conclusion- Held that the Customs Department has already accepted the prayer for provisional release. The issue is only in respect of the conditions that are to be imposed. The Court has considered the total value of the goods and the amount of the Bank Guarantee. The calculated amount for the bank guarantee would be substantial and may almost constitute 70-80% of the value of the goods itself. The imposition of conditions being a discretionary matter, in the facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and fair that apart from the Bond which has been directed, the Bank Guarantee to the tune of 30% of the differential duty be furnished by the Petitioner. Ordered accordingly.
