PALLAHAN INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court inter alia praying for quashing the condition number (b) of provisional release letter dated 18 -6 -2015 asking it to furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 6,95,000/ -. The Officers of respondent No. 2 seized five containers of the petitioner at ICD, Ludhiana on 5 -3 -2015, 19 -3 -2015 and 20 -3 -2015. The petitioner deposited Rs. 10,00,000/ - and requested respondent No. 2 to release the seized goods provisionally, whereupon respondent No. 2 communicated no objection certificate to the office of the Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana. Consequently, the Additional Commissioner provisionally released the goods to the petitioner without imposing any condition of furnishing bank guarantee. Thereafter on 7 -4 -2015, the Officers of respondent No. 2 (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) again seized one container of the petitioner at Nhava Sheva. The petitioner requested respondent No. 4 (Assistant Commissioner of Customs), SUB (X), Nhava Sheva, Navi Mumbai, District Raigad, Maharashtra) provisionally to release its seized goods. On 24 -4 -2015, respondent No. 3 (Commissioner of Customs) ordered for provisional release of goods to the petitioner subject to furnishing of bank guarantee of 20% of declared FOB value, apart from execution of bond of 100% of declared value. On 25 -5 -2015, the petitioner deposited Rs. 5,00,000/ - with the respondent by way of a demand draft and requested respondent No. 4 for provisional release of seized goods, but without insisting for bank guarantee, whereupon the respondent No. 4 reduced the amount of bank guarantee from 20% to 10% of declared FOB value vide order dated 18 -6 -2015.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 5,00,000/ -. The petitioner is also ready to furnish personal/surety bond to the extent of 100% of the declared value of the goods. The condition imposed of furnishing bank guarantee of 10% of the amount of the total value of FOB is quite unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal.

(3.) We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.