Page 62 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

388 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
redetermined value of goods - Respondent not entitled to ask for bank guaran-
tee on amount of IGST on redetermined value of goods - Communication dat-
ed 7th September, 2018, quashed and set aside. [paras 7, 8, 9]
Petition allowed
CASE CITED
Zip Zap Exim (P) Ltd. v. Union of India — 2018 (364) E.L.T. 26 (Guj.) — Relied on .............. [Paras 3.7, 7]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Dhaval Shah, for the Petitioner.
Shri Jaimin A. Gandhi, for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : Bhargav D. Karia, J. (Oral)]. - Rule returnable forthwith.
Mr. Jaimin Gandhi, the Learned Counsel waives service of notice of rule for and
on behalf of the respondents.
2. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
9(A) be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or writ in the nature of certiora-
ri calling for the records of the case and after examining legality and validi-
ty of the communications dated 7-9-2018 (Annexure-’A’) and be pleased to
quash and set aside to the extent it seeks to demand from the petitioner
bank guarantee of 25 per cent of the IGST;
(B) be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of manda-
mus ordering and directing the respondents their subordinates, servants
and agents to forthwith (I) permit the petitioner to export/re-export the
goods without including amount of IGST in the calculation of the amount
of bank guarantee and (ii) to accept the bank guarantee as furnished by the
petitioner on the undertaking of the petitioner that the said guarantee will
be renewed from time to time till the completion of adjudication;
(C) during the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, be
pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to export the seized
goods and accept the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 9,18,723/- already furnished by
the petitioner on the undertaking of the petitioner to renew the same from
time to time till completion of adjudication proceedings;
(D) any other further relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circum-
stances of the case may also please be granted;
3. The facts of the case may be summarized as under :-
3.1 The petitioner is a private limited company and is an approved SEZ
unit under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 [for short ‘The SEZ Act’] for
trading activity, which also includes export of 11 items viz. rechargeable battery
for torch and emergency light etc. A Letter of Approval dated 12th January, 2017
was issued by the Development Commissioner of the Kandla Special Economic
Zone [For short ‘KASEZ’].
3.2 A search was conducted by the officers of the DRI at the premises of
the petitioner on 8th January, 2018 and various documents and goods were de-
tained/resumed on the allegation of misdeclaration of value. Thereafter, a letter
was issued by the DRI on 7th March, 2018 stating the same to be Seizure-cum-No
Objection for provisional release of goods mentioned in Annexures-A & B to the
seizure memo. The DRI seized the goods imported by the petitioner on the
ground of undervaluation of the goods, which were imported by the petitioner
being rechargeable battery for torch and emergency light etc.
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  182