The court emphasized the need to balance the release of goods with ongoing investigations and clarified that provisional release should cover only non-confiscated goods.

S. Manikumar, J.

1. Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order of the writ court dated 10.08.2017 made in W.P. No.19767 of 2017, by which, the writ court, disposed of the writ petition, directing the first respondent therein, namely, the first appellant herein, to provisionally release the goods in terms of the order dated 16.06.2017, after accepting the payment of duty, amounting to Rs.15,12,289/- on the re-determined value as per SIIB report and on re-verifying the Bank Guarantee and Personal Bond filed by the respondent, within a period of 10 days from the date or receipt of a copy of that order. Writ court also directed that, it is open to the second respondent therein/second appellant herein, to examine the cargo reported by the respondent, and sought to be cleared by the said bill of entry.

2. Material on record discloses that the respondent is engaged in the business of import and trading of mobile phones and its accessories, assorted china watches of unpopular brands, etc., and for conducting the said business, they have been issued with Importer Exporter Code No.0413038572 by Joint DGFT, Chennai. During the course of its business, the respondent had imported one consignment of mobile phone and accessories, viz. Hands free for mobile, Mobile phone pu pouch, Mobile Phone Screen guard, Mobile phone speaker, Mobile Phone cable, Mobile Phone blue-tooth, Mic, Mobile Phone plastic stand, Mobile phone selfie stick, Mobile phone spare parts (ringer) all of unpopular brand and assorted china watches (unpopular brand) from the overseas supplier M/s. Milton Raise Industries Ltd., Hongkong, vide their Invoice No.GZV-V17030019 dated 19.03.2017 and had given a credit period of 3 months from the payment of sale consideration to the overseas supplier.

3. Material on record further discloses that, after the goods arrived at the Chennai Sea Customs Port, a Bill of Entry bearing No.9670811 dated 12.05.2017 was filed along with relevant import documents for assessment and clearance of the subject goods and accordingly, the assessment officer/Assistant Commissioner of Custom ordered the bill to be taken up for first check. When the consignment was taken up for examination, it was reported by the officials that since SIIB, Chennai, had taken up the bill for further investigation, the petitioner was directed to report before SIIB, Chennai. On appearance of the petitioner before the SIIB officials, the consignment was examined by SIIB officers on 03.05.2017 in the presence of Docks officials at D.R.Logistics, Container Freight Station and consequently were seized under seizure mahazar dated 03.05.2017 after drawing inventory of the goods.

4. Material on record further discloses that, pursuant to the above inspection/examination of the goods and seizure of the goods by SIIB, the petitioner approached SIIB and gave various representations in the matter, both oral and written, seeking provisional release of the seized goods in terms of Section 110-A of the Customs Act and accordingly, SIIB officers after proper consideration of the representation, forwarded the file to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs.

5. Material on record further discloses that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs/first appellant, after considering their request for provisional release and the report of SIIB, was pleased to allow provisional release of the goods after obtaining the approval from his higher authority/competent authority, vide his order dated 16.06.2017 conveying that the provisional release of the goods is granted, subject to the condition that the importer should pay the duty amount of Rs.15,12,289/- on the re-determined value of the goods as per SIIB report and furnish a bank guarantee for 30% of differential duty of Rs.4,60,000/- and execution of a personal bond for the total value of the goods i.e. Rs.51,05,681/-. In order to comply with provisional release order dated 16.06.2017, petitioner paid the differential duty amount of Rs.4,60,000/- v