COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. MANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to filing of this appeal and stay application by the Revenue are, in brief, as under: -

(2.) SHRI S.K. Dubey, ld. Standing Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that all the importers in this case, on inquiry by the investigating officers of DGRI, have been found to be fictitious and non -existent, that investigation revealed that not only the goods imported are the goods which are restricted for import in terms of the Exim Policy and could be imported only against specific import licences issued by DGFT, the same have been heavily under invoiced , that in terms of the provisions of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, document or goods seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, may, pending the order of the adjudicating authority, be released to the owner on taking a bond from him in proper form with such security and conditions as the adjudicating authority may require, that from the provisions of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, it is clear that the provisional release of the goods seized can be made only to the owner with such security and with such specific conditions as the adjudicating authority may prescribe, that the respondent is not a bona fide owner of the goods, that this is clear from the Commissioner's order dated 23 -10 -2013, wherein taking cognizance of the fact that the importers have been found to be nonexistent and therefore Shri Manjit Singh could not be treated as bona fide owner of the imported goods, the Commissioner informed the respondent that the seized goods could not be released to him, that in view of this, his subsequent order dated 5 -11 -2013, ordering provisional release of the imported goods except those in prohibited category, to the respondent, subject to payment of duty and furnishing of bank guarantee and bond as prescribed in the order, is contrary to the provisions of the law, that merely on the basis of an affidavit filed by the respondent, Shri Manjit Singh, he could not be treated bona fide owner of the goods, that since the value of the goods is grossly under -declared and the importers are fictitious and non -existent, provisional release of the goods on payment of duty on the declared value and furnishing of bank guarantee for 25% of the value of the goods to the respondent would cause a irreparable damage to the Revenue, that out of 12 containers, 8 containers lying at Nava Sheva port, have been imported at that port, and therefore, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Raipur had neither jurisdiction nor the powers to order the transfer of those goods to the ICD, Dhannad, and provisional release from there to the respondent and that in view of this, the Commissioner's order is not only contrary to the provisions of the law but also highly improper.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.