ORDER :

1. Petitioner/firm has approached this Court praying for return of bank guarantees furnished by it bearing Nos. 0095BG000012019, dated 22.03.2019, for the amount of Rs. 5,26,500/- and No. 0180BGFD000121, dated 19.05.2020, for the amount of Rs. 10,53,000/- as a condition for provisional release of imported goods vide order, dated 20.03.2020, in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in Writ Petition No. 20419 of 2019.

2. The factual matrix, giving raise to this proceeding, is as follows:

On 16.02.2019, the petitioner/firm had imported a consignment of Areca nuts from Colombo, Srilanka, at Krishnapatnam port and the Bill of Entry, dated 16.02.2019, was furnished by the petitioner. In the course of provisional assessment, the goods were detained subject to verification of the certificate of origin. At this stage, the petitioner had approached this Court vide Writ Petition No. 20419 of 2019, wherein a Co-ordinate bench of this Court, inter-alia, passed the following order:

“Shri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Suresh Kumar Routhu, Counsel for the respondents.

Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2019, which is an application seeking release of the goods seized by the respondents. Considering the order passed in other connected case i.e. W.P. No. 10030 of 2019, dated 31.10.2019, we direct the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee equivalent to 30% of the differential duty and for the remaining amount, solvent surety to the satisfaction of the officer concerned. On furnishing such bank guarantee and solvent surety, the goods shall be released. It is made clear that bank guarantee so furnished by the petitioner shall be renewed from time to time until finalization of the proceedings.”

3. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner had furnished bank guarantees equivalent to 30% of differential duty and the remaining amount was secured by furnishing solvent surety as per the order. As adjudication proceedings had not commenced within six (6) months and goods ought to be un-conditionally released, the petitioner has approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 20419 of 2019 praying that the customs authorities be directed to return the bank guarantees furnished by them.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the goods had been seized under Section 110 of the Custom Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’) and as no show-cause notice under Section 124(a) of the Act had been issued within six (6) months of its seizure, the goods are required to be un-conditionally released. Hence, the customs authorities be directed to return the bank guarantees furnished by them.

5. On the other hand Sri. Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned senior standing counsel for Customs, submits that the goods in question had not been seized under Section 110 of the Act but they were kept in the custody of proper officer in terms of Section 45(1) of the Act, for the purpose of verification of country of origin certificate furnished by the importer.

6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties.

7. Petitioner/firm had imported a consignment of Areca nuts from Colombo, Srilanka, under Bill of Entry No. 2084046, dated 16.02.2019. At the port of entry, the Customs authorities kept the goods in the custody of the proper officer for the purpose of provisional assessment and verification of the certificate of origin furnished by the petitioner.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are unable to persuade ourselves that the goods had been seized in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the Act. On the other hand, it appears that they had been kept in the custody of the proper officer, pending verification of the country of origin certificate. At this stage, the petitioner had approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 20419 of 2019, whereupon this Court passed an order of conditional release directing the petitioner/firm to furnish bank guarantee equivalent to 30% of the differential duty. As such guarantee was furnished along with solvent surety for th