Delhi HC Refuses to Enhance Bank Guarantee Demand to Release Seized Gold Imported after Export for Exhibition [Read Order]
![Delhi HC Refuses to Enhance Bank Guarantee Demand to Release Seized Gold Imported after Export for Exhibition [Read Order] Delhi HC Refuses to Enhance Bank Guarantee Demand to Release Seized Gold Imported after Export for Exhibition [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Delhi-High-Court-Delhi-High-Court-Refuses-to-Enhance-Bank-Guarantee-Demand-Bank-Guarantee-Demand-Seized-Gold-Imported-after-Export-for-Exhibition-Seized-Gold-Exhibition-Export-Taxscan.jpg)
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court refused to enhance the bank guarantee demand to release the seized gold imported after export for exhibition.
The gold, imported into India by the respondent, M/s Its My Name Pvt Ltd, was seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), in part from the workshop/factory premises of the respondent and in part from the Airport, after the gold had crossed the Customs barrier.
The Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the learned Tribunal directing the release of the gold seized from the factory/warehouse of the respondent as well as 25400.06 grams of gold jewellery covered by Bill of Entry (B/E) No. 107190 dated 26th February 2019 but enhanced the conditions of release to the furnishing of a bond covering the entire value of the gold along with an irrevocable Bank Guarantee (B/G) for ₹ 10 crores.
However, the Delhi High Court set aside the direction of the Tribunal permitting the release of the consignment of 25299.68 grams of gold jewellery also seized at the Airport, on the reasoning that the Bill of Entry filed in respect of the said consignment was not signed by the respondent or the Customs clerk.
The main contention of the respondent-Review Petitioner is that the quantity of 25299.68 grams of gold jewellery was imported as baggage and that the requirement of filing a Bill of Entry, which emanates from Section 46(1)3 of the Customs Act, in Chapter VII thereof, does not apply to baggage, in view of Section 444 of the Customs Act.
The Coram comprising of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Mukta Gupta observed that “The judgment under review worked out the quantum of the bank guarantee to be furnished at Rs 10 crores, as 30% of the total value of the gold seized, including the unreleased 25299.68 grams gold jewellery forming the subject matter of the present review proceedings. That amount was enhanced by the Supreme Court to Rs 15 crores, otherwise upholding our judgment. It is not possible, therefore, for us to direct furnishing of any further bank guarantee, as a condition, for the release of 25299.68 grams gold.”
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates