IDEAL CARPETS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner, who is a company dealing in sale and export of carpets, has filed this petition being aggrieved by order date 12-10-2011 passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Customs), Mandideep and order dated 16-12-2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mandideep, whereby the petitioner has been directed to furnish bond and bank guarantee of Rs. 16832900/- which include differential duty of Rs. 8416450/- and penalty of Rs. 8416450/- and an additional deposit Rs. 2878410/- towards provisional duty for provisionally releasing the goods and by the second impugned order had further been informed that the goods have infact not been seized but would be subjected to provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Customs Act') only in case the amount is deposited. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had initially exported the carpets put on account of recession has re-imported them and the respondent-authorities have stored and placed the carpets in the godown in Mandideep. As the products are perishable, the petitioner had filed an application seeking release of the goods in response to which the respondent Dy. Commissioner (Customs), Mandideep, District Raisen passed the impugned order dated 12-10-2011 permitting the same subject to deposit of the aforementioned amount. The petitioner filed a presentation before the authorities against the order dated 12-10-2011 in response to which the respondent authorities by the second impugned order dated 16-12-2011 have informed the petitioner that the goods have not been seized or confiscated in the proceedings under Section 110 of the Customs Act and, therefore, Section 110A of the Customs Act is not applicable to their case and provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Customs Act would be made only after they fulfill the conditions mentioned in the letter dated 12-10-2011.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is reimporting the goods and had produced all the relevant documents before the concerned authorities and in case the authorities are not satisfied with the same, it may adopt the procedure prescribed by Section 18 of the Customs Act and proceed to provisionally assess the petitioner, but the authorities have not done so and on the contrary have issued the impugned order dated 12-10-2011 on the application for release filed by the petitioner directing the petitioner to deposit the amount which includes differential duty, penalty and provisional duty which is not permissible in law.

(3.) It is next contended that the authorities can only ask the petitioner to deposit the amount of provisional assessment in case any such provisional assessment is made under Section 18 of the Customs Act, and prior to that no amount towards differential duty, penalty or provisional duty can be recovered form the petitioner. It is also contended that in such circumstances the respondent-authorities were only required to impose some reasonable conditions and in any case issue a show cause notice to the petitioner, hear them on their application seeking release of the goods and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law.