Hindustan Industrial Products Proprietor Anand Kumar Gupta v. Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence & Anr.

1. Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions. WP(C)6667/2016&6668/2016 Page 1 of[4] 2016:DHC:8807-DB WP(C)6667/2016& WPrO 6668/2016

2. Notice.Mr.Satish Aggarwala,Advocate accepts notice for the DGCEI (RespondentNo.l)and Mr.Sanjeev Namla,Advocate accepts notice forthe CentralExcise Department(RespondentNo.2).

3. The short point involved in these petitions concerns the conditions imposed by the Respondent, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence('DGCEI'),for the release ofgoods seized vide thepanchnama dated 29"^ January 2016.By letters dated 9'^February 2016 addressed to the Commissioner ofCentral Excise,DGCEI,the Petitioners had applied forthe provisional release ofthe seized goods.By a letter dated 25^^February,2016 theDGCEIcommunicated to the Commissioner ofCentral Excise,Lucknow Zone aboutthefollowing specific conditionsforthe release ofgoods: "In this regard,I am directed to request you to provisionally release the goods,plant and machinery seized from both the above mentioned units,subjectto following conditions: (i)Bond for full assessment value.

(ii) Bank guarantee/ cash security of 25% of the assessable value ofgoods,plant& machinery; This issues with the approval ofPr.Additional Director General,CEI,New Delhi."

4. Mr.Pradeep Jain, learned counsel for the Petitioners, points out that the goods in question were seized way back on 3"^ November, 2015. The Petitioners had withdrawn the writ petitions filed earlier in the expectation of orders for provisional release being passed. He submits that while the WP(C)6667/2016&6668/2016 Page2of[4] Petitioners have no difficulty in furnishing a bond for the full assessable value ofthe goods,they are prepared to pay the full duty without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the further proceedings if any. Therefore, there may be no occasion to require them to furnish a Bank Guarantee(BG) for 25% ofthe assessable value ofgoods,plant and machinery.In any event the condition for furnishing a BG for 25% of the value of the goods (as against the differential duty) is contrary to several orders passed by the Court including the one passed in Navshakti Industries P. Ltd. v. Commissioner ofCustoms 2011 (267)ELT 483(Del) as modified by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Navshakti Industries 2011(269)ELT(A 146)(SC).The above orders have been followed by this Court in its order dated 22"^^ February,2016 in W.P.(C) 1536/2016(Balaji Solutions Private Limited v. Union ofIndia). The conditions imposed in terms ofthe above orders are the furnishing ofa bond for 100% ofthe value of the goods and security in the fonn of a BG for 30% of the differential duty,with an auto renewal clause and as per RBI guidelines.

5. In view ofthe above,it is directed that the Petitioner shall be permitted to provisional release ofthe goods upon furnishing a bond for 100% ofthe full assessment value and, in view of the statement of the counsel for the Petitioners, upon payment ofthe fiill duty, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the further proceedings ifany.

6. Mr. Narula will communicate this order forthwith to the Respondent NO. 2 so that there is no further unnecessary delay in the provisional release of the goods to the Petitioners subjectto the above modified conditions. WP(C)6667/2016&6668/2016 Page3of[4]

7. In the event of non-compliance with this order, it will be open to the Petitioners to apply to the Courtfor directions.

8. The petitions are disposed ofin the above terms. Order dasti.

AUGUST 01,2016 acm S.MURALIDHAR,J NAJMIWAZIRI,J