Page 66 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

392 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
3.9 The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court challenging the
communication dated 7th September, 2018.
4. A co-ordinate bench of this Court by order dated 4th October, 2018
permitted the petitioner to re-export the goods on filing an undertaking. The or-
der dated 4th October, 2018 [2018 (19) G.S.T.L. 422 (Guj.)] reads as under :-
“1. The petitioner wants to re-export the consignment of Dry Batteries, the
import of which had run into controversies.
2. In our order dated 9-8-2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.
11209 of 2018, while modifying partially the conditions imposed by the au-
thorities to permit the petitioner to re-export the goods, the following order
was passed;
“6. We have considered the relevant facts. Since investigation is still
going on, the petitioner would also have full liberty to defend its po-
sition in adjudication that may be initiated. We would not make any
observations as to prejudice one side or the other. Nevertheless, what
prima facie appears is that now that the goods are allowed to be re-
exported, the question of payment of customs duty, on revised valua-
tion even if it were to be ultimately established, would not survive.
Of course there would be question of penalty and personal penalties
in case the charges of misdeclaration while attempting to import the
goods are established. Section 112 of the Customs Act prescribes dif-
ferent penalties under different situations. The prescription of penal-
ties is by maximum permissible ceiling. It is not necessary to impose
maximum possible penalties in every case.
7. Considering such facts and circumstances of the case, we modify
the condition of Bank Guarantee to 25% of the customs duty that may
be leviable on the redetermined value of the goods. The condition for
providing bond for the remaining value of the goods remains un-
changed upon which condition being fulfilled within three weeks, the
petitioner may be permitted to re-export the goods. Petition is dis-
posed of.”
2. Pursuant to such order, the petitioner furnished Bank Guarantee of
Rs. 9,18,723/, which, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs thought was
inadequate. According to him, the Customs Duty on the redetermined val-
ue of goods comes to Rs. 97,55,625/- and therefore, 25% thereof would
come to Rs. 24,38,906/-. According to him, thus, the petitioner had to pro-
vide further Bank Guarantee of the difference amount of Rs. 15,20,183/-. On
7-9-2018, therefore, he passed the impugned order asking the petitioner to
provide further Bank Guarantee for the said sum.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the import of
goods, no IGST was to be levied since the petitioner Unit was situated in a
SEZ. The competent authority has completely ignored this aspect of the
matter while computing the Customs Duty on the redetermined value of
goods. Hence, the difference. He further submitted that the goods are lying
unutilized since long and are fast deteriorating.
4. Considering the issues arising, let there be Notice, returnable on 25-10-
2018. By way of ad-interim relief, the respondents are directed to permit re-
export of the goods in question on condition that the Director of the peti-
tioner-Company files an Undertaking before this Court latest by 9-10-2018

GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  186