Page 63 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

2020 ] ZIP ZAP EXIM (P) LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 389
3.3 The petitioner by letter dated 9th March, 2018 requested the DRI to
permit for re-export of the goods.
3.4 As the request of the petitioner was not considered by the authority,
the Special Civil Application No. 9128 of 2018 was preferred by the petitioner.
The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 20th June, 2018 by directing
the respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner’s request for re-export of the goods.
3.5 The respondent No. 2 by communication dated 3rd July, 2018, or-
dered to release the seized goods for re-exports on the condition that the peti-
tioner furnish the bond for the redetermined value of seized goods by DRI with
security of 25% of the bank guarantee of the redetermined/enhanced value of the
goods.
3.6 The petitioner, thereafter, by letter dated 4th July, 2018, requested
the respondent No. 2 to waive the condition of the bank guarantee, as it was not
possible for the petitioner to meet with such condition of furnishing the bank
guarantee at the rate of 25% of the redetermined/enhanced value of the goods.
3.7 The petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court by preferring Spe-
cial Civil Application No. 11209 of 2018 with a prayer to permit the petitioner to
furnish the bank guarantee at the rate of 25% of the customs duty that may be
leviable on the redetermined/enhanced value of the goods. The order dated 9th
August, 2018 passed in the Special Civil Application No. 11209 of 2018 [2018
(364) E.L.T. 26 (Guj.)] reads as under :-
“1. The petitioner has challenged a condition contained in the communi-
cation dated 3-7-2018 to enable the petitioner to re-export the consignment
of goods which the petitioner desired to import. The litigation has longish
history. We may record only relevant facts.
2. The petitioner is a private limited company and has a manufacturing
unit in SEZ, Kandla. The petitioner had imported a consignment of various
kinds of dried batteries and other electronic items. The Customs authorities,
Kandla however, detained the goods on 8-1-2018 on prima facie doubt about
its correct valuation as declared by the petitioner. After attempting to se-
cure the provisional release thereof for sometime, the petitioner finally con-
veyed to the departmental authorities that the petitioner no longer wishes
to clear the goods. The same may be permitted to be re-exported. The com-
petent authority by the impugned communication conveyed to the peti-
tioner its permission to do so however, subject to the condition that the pe-
titioner executes a bond for the full value of the goods in question redeter-
mined by the DRI and of furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to 25% of
the its value on such re-determination.
3. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the
materials on record it appears that according to the petitioner, the total val-
ue of the imported goods was Rs. 14.29 lacs (rounded off). The DRI authori-
ties estimated the value thereof at Rs. 253.38 lacs (rounded off). This was,
primarily, on the basis of investigation carried out by the authorities. Such
investigation is still going on. According to the authorities, however, the
Director of the petitioner-company had attempted to undervalue the correct
value being nine times the declared value. They pointed out that the state-
ment of the Director is not retracted. They also relied on the independent
valuation report obtained by them.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a
SEZ unit and has been in existence since quite sometime. The valuation de-
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  183