CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.I Customs Early Hearing Application No.70161 of 2025 (On behalf of the Appellant)

In Customs Appeal No.70512 of 2025 (Arising out of Order-In-Original No.56-2024-25, dated-25/02/2025 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) CGST & Central Excise, )

M/s B P Wire Industry …..Appellant (D-14, Industrial Estate-III, Road Aligarh Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh 202001)

VERSUS Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), Lucknow ….Respondent (Hall No.3, 5^th & 11^th Floor, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226024)

APPEARANCE Shri Manish Pushkarna, Advocate &

Shri Jitin Singhal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A. K. Chaudhary, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

MISCELLANEOUS ORDER NO.70188/2025 FINAL ORDER NO.-70433/2025 DATE OF HEARING : 27.06.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 30.06.2025 P.K. CHOUDHARY:

M/s B.P. Wire Industry has filed the present appeal whereby the Appellant seeks to challenge the Provisional Release Order No.56/2024-25 dated 25.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), Commissionerate Lucknow. On the grounds, interalia, the Commissioner has vide his order for provisional release of the seized goods i.e imported Betel Nuts and Betel Nuts Power to be exported has imposed a condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee. Further, the Appellant has also filed miscellaneous Application seeking early hearing of the above mentioned appeal on the ground interalia the subject goods are perishable in nature and are highly susceptible to fungal infestation due to atmospheric humidity. That the market value is deprecating with each passing day and the prolonged seizure is severely impacting their export-worthiness due to deterioration over time and the Appellant is having financial hardship due to demurrage charges.

2. While taking up the application for Early Hearing the learned Departmental Representative has raised preliminary objection for hearing the appeal by the Single Member Bench. In support of his submission the learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Lucknow V/s Aimr Jewels Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 155 (All.) whereby the Hon'ble High Court while dealing with the issue in a case where the goods had already been ordered to be confiscated. The Hon'ble High Court examined Section 129C(4) of the Customs Act and held that a bare reading of the said provision that any case, which is assigned to a Bench can be decided by one of the members sitting singely if the value of the goods confiscated without option to redeem under Section

125 does not exceed Rs 50 lakhs.

3. Countering to the said submissions of the learned Departmental Representative, learned Advocate Shri Manish Pushkaran & Shri Jitin Singhal learned counsel for the Appellant contended that there are three stages, namely, detention, seizure and confiscation. In the present case, the present appeal relates to only first two conditions, i.e. detention and seizure, which comes under Section 110A of the Customs Act, for which the goods are required to be provisionally released pending adjudication. Furthermore, it is the submission of the Appellant that 3rd stage i.e. confiscation, would arise only after the final adjudication of the case, which would be covered under Section 129C(4)(a) of the Customs Act, which is not the subject matter of the present appeal.

4. Also, it has been contended that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, (Supra), is distinguishable on the facts and is, thus, not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the cited case the goods were confiscated without giving an option to redeem the same, while the same is not in the present case. Hence, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the above cited case of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is not applicable, instead, the present case i