Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Mrj Trading vs The Union Of India on 31 October, 2019
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C. Praveen Kumar, Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
W.P. No. 10030 of 2019
O R D E R:- (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar) This writ petition came to be filed for the following substantive relief:
"...to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus setting aside the impugned letter dated 25.06.2019 and directing respondent No.2 to accept the bank guarantee equivalent to 10% of differential duty for the purpose of the provisional assessment and to release the impugned goods immediately."
The petitioner, who is engaged in the business of areca nuts, imports areca nuts from Sri Lanka and claimed benefit of exemption under ISFTA Exemption Notification on several times and cleared the goods on furnishing bank guarantee equivalent to 10% of the differential duty and those goods were accompanied by a valid Certificate of Original as prescribed in ISFTA Rules Notification certifying that the said goods have originated from Srilanka, and further, the petitioner has furnished a bank guarantee equivalent to 10% of the differential duty for clearance of the imported goods after provisional assessment. Now, the petitioner's grievance is that in spite of furnishing bank guarantee and all the supporting documents as required, the respondents have not released the impugned consignment, and further, the 2nd respondent, while placing reliance on the Alert Circular No.34/2015-C1, dated 29.12.2015 of the Director of Revenue 2 CPK,J & KVL,J WP_10030_2019 Intelligence, issued the impugned letter dated 25.06.2019 directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee equivalent to 100% of differential duty for provisional assessment and clearance of impugned goods imported from Sri Lanka.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.
At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the Alert Circular dated 29.12.2015 which reads as under:
"Certificates of Origin in respect of certain consignments of Areca Nuts in respect of which preferential treatment under ISFTA had been availed purported to be shipped from Sri Lanka were subjected to verification with the Sri Lankan authorities and it has been revealed that the details of the alleged exporters were not available as per records of Sri Lanka Customs implying that such exports never took place from Sri Lanka.
A comparison of DGCIS data pertaining to import of Areca Nuts into India from South Asian Countries with the production figures of these countries available on FAO website reveals that though there is no production of Areca Nuts in Pakistan & Afghanistan, there has been some imports of Areca Nuts from these countries which does not appear to be justified. It also appears that imports from Sri Lanka are not commensurate with the production of Areca Nuts in Sri Lanka leading to a reasonable apprehension that third country imports may have been diverted through Sri Lanka for availing benefits under ISFTA."
The 2nd respondent, in his counter, while disputing the contents of the writ affidavit, mainly relied upon paragraph No.12 of the counter and submitted that if release is to be made, the same may be made on certain terms and conditions. Paragraph No.12 of the counter is extracted hereunder:
3 CPK,J & KVL,J WP_10030_2019 "With reference to Paras A.6 to A.9 of the writ petition, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner stated that in case of similar imports of Areca nuts, Bank Guarantees were obtained for 10% of the differential duty only, but not for 100% differential duty. It is emphasized that in this particular case involving 2 Bills of Entry No.2083849, dated 16.02.2019 and 2083893, dated 16.02.2019, there was a specific reference from SriLankan Authorities by themselves as discussed in paragraphs 12 and 13. As the goods are exported/originated from Srilanka and the authorities of the same country have expressed the benefit of doubt, Bank Guarantee was insisted upon for 100% as a measure to safeguard the Revenue. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the authorities solely acted upon DRT's Alert Circular is not acceptable. It can be seen from the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the provisional release of the goods was ordered on execution of a Bank Guarantee to the extent of 30% of the differential duty. As the subject matter is serious in nature and as already stated that there is reference from Srilankan authorities by themselves, it was mandatory for demanding the 100% Bank Guarantee. Hence, the allegation by the petitioner is not proper."
The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in G.S.Nuts v. Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot1 and submits that the case on hand is similar to the one referred to above and pleads that the same order may be passed.
Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and particularly in view of the judgment of the Delhi High Court referred supra, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the authorities to allow provisional release of the goods in favour 1 2016(335) ELT 397 (Del.) 4 CPK,J & KVL,J WP_10030_2019 of the petitioner subject to the petitioner executing a bond for a sum equivalent to the 100% of the value of goods and furnishing a security in the form of a Bank Guarantee for a sum of equivalent to 30% of the differential duty, with an auto renewal clause and as per RBI guidelines.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
__________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 31.10.2019 _______________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Note:- Furnish copy in two days b/o bcj