In Custom Appeal No. 85263 of 2023-CESTAT- CESTAT (Mumbai) modifies conditions of provisional release, holding the prescribed conditions of provisional release to be too harsh
Members Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical) & Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial) [19-04-2023]

Read Order: OSM Ecocar Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs

LE Correspondent

Mumbai, May 3, 2023: Holding the prescribed conditions of provisional release to be too harsh in light of the duty already paid by OSM Ecocar Pvt. Ltd. (appellant), the Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has modified the conditions in the order of provisional release, stating that the used equipment (Capital goods) imported by the appellant and seized under the seizure memo can be released on execution of indemnity bond of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores) along with it bank guarantee of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs.).

Brief facts of the case were that the appellant had filed a bill of entry for clearance of old used machinery and declared an assessable value of Rs. 4,28,86,373/-. The goods were examined by a Chartered Engineer empanelled with the customs authority, and based on his reports, the assessable value was determined and duty was paid by the appellant. The goods were subsequently seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act,1962.

The Tribunal held that, “As no reasons are forthcoming for enhancing the value of the imported goods over and above the value belonging by the Chartered Engineer. We are of the view that the order prescribing conditions of provisional release is too harsh, taking note of the fact that on the assessed value appellant has already paid duty amounting to Rs. 1,18,94,536/-. Taking into account, the fact that issue is in respect of the redetermination of assessed value, the bond should not be more than the deferential value. Commissioner (Appeal) has in fact modified the order in respect of the security deposit to be made without amending the value of the bond. In our view taking into account of the fact of the case the value of the bond and security needs to be redetermined in interest of justice protecting interest of both revenue and the appellant.”