Allowed

Daya Enterprises v. the Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Delhi HC1 Apr 2016W.P.(C)/2861/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the conditions imposed by the Commissioner of Customs for provisional release of seized goods were onerous and dismissed the preliminary objection regarding the alternative remedy, directing the goods be released subject to modified bond and guarantee conditions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; conditions imposed for provisional release are modified; goods directed to be released subject to bond equivalent to 100% of re-determined value and bank guarantee fo

Daya Enterprises Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Export) — Customs and Excise | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 24. + W.P.(C) 2861/2016 DAYA ENTERPRISES ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Priyadarshi Manish and Ms Anjali J. Manish, Advocates.

¶3

versus

¶4

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) ..... Respondent Through: Mr Kamal Nijhawan, Senior Standing counsel with Mr Sumit Gaur, Advocate.

¶5

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE R. K. GAUBA O R D E R % 01.04.2016

¶6

Notice. Mr Kamal Nijhawan, learned Senior Standing counsel accepts notice.

¶7

The short question that arises in this writ petition is whether the conditions imposed by the order dated 11^th March, 2016 by the Commissioner of Customs (Export) for provisional release of the goods in favour of the Petitioner is onerous.

¶8

Three conditions for provisional release as stipulated in the above order are (a) Execution of bond for an amount of Rs.1,65,49,893/- which is equivalent to the re-determined value of unbranded goods (b) payment of Rs. 50,42,172/- that is the total duty involved on the value re-determined as

¶9

W.P.(C) 2861/2016 Page 1 of 3

¶10

above of unbranded seized goods or execution of Bank Guarantee equivalent to said amount with auto renewal clause (c) execution of Bank Guarantee of Rs.41,37,473/ which is equivalent to 25% of the re-determined value of seized goods for the purposes of securing fine and penalty, with auto renewal clause.

¶11

This Court had on earlier occasions dealt with similar issues by its order dated 5^th February, 2016 in W.P.(C) No.5833/2015 ( Spirotech Heat Exchangers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India ). After noticing the earlier decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court in Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TDD, New Delhi (2011) 267 ELT 483 (Del), the Court in that case had modified the conditions imposed for provisional release of the goods.

¶12

In the present case, a preliminary objection has been raised by the Respondent that the Petitioner has an alternative remedy of an appeal against the order of the Commissioner granting provisional release of the goods. However, as was noticed in Spirotech Heat Exchangers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India ( supra ), since the Respondent does not appear to be inclined to follow the aforementioned orders and the binding order of the Supreme Court, and are compelling exporters and importers to approach this Court every time for relaxation of the conditions imposed for the provisional release of goods, the Court is of the view that relegating the Petitioner to a statutory remedy would not be efficacious.

¶13

W.P.(C) 2861/2016 Page 2 of 3

¶14

Consequently, the conditions imposed in the order dated 11^th March, 2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export) are modified and the Court directs the provisional release of the goods in question in favour of the Petitioner subject to the Petitioner executing a bond in the sum equivalent to 100% of the re-determined value of the goods and furnishing security in the form of bank guarantee for a sum equivalent to 30% of the differential duty, with an auto renewal clause and as per RBI guidelines.

¶15

All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be raised and decided in the adjudication proceedings.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of with the above terms. Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

¶17

S. MURALIDHAR, J

¶18

R. K. GAUBA, J

¶19

APRIL 01, 2016 MK

¶20

W.P.(C) 2861/2016 Page 3 of 3

Daya Enterprises v. the Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Enterprises v. the Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs Delhi Consumers Coop.Wholesale

M/S Voluptas Developer Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Perfect Drop Pins Manufacturing Co. Vs Labour Commissioner of Delhi & Anr.

Gaurav Kumar Dhingra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India Vs Uday Ram & Ors.

K.P.Srivastava Vs the Mgmt. of M.C.D.

M/S G4S Secure Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ram Babu Arya & Ors.

Poonam Sethi Vs Hindu College, University of Delhi and Ors.

Devender & Anr. Vs State of Delhi

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State

Director General Esi Corporation & Anr. Vs Vinesh D. Meshram & Ors.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -DELHI-8 Vs Shri Santosh Kumar Garg

Ahluwalia Construction Group Vs Commissioner 0F Service Tax, Delhi-I

Pr. Commissioner of I. TAX-2 Vs M/S. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Erstwhile Bharti Televentures Ltd.