Ambika Vikas Udyog v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Delhi Zonal Unit & Anr.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(EX) 398 2019 (367) E.L.T. 404 Ambika Vikas Udyog v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Delhi Zonal Unit & Anr. CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 --Seizure--SmugglingGold jewellery meant for export----Since the Court finds no justification in law for continuation of the instructions of the DRI to MMTC, the said instructions were quashed and security/BG amount should be released to assessee to the extent it was entitled in accordance with law. As far as the SCN was concerned, if no further hearings were contemplated, Adjudication Officer should proceed to pass the adjudication order not later than three months from today in accordance with law.--Assessee was in the business of export of gold jewellery. The gold for making such jewellery was procured by assessee from MMTC. According to assessee, it was making gold jewellery exports out of the gold procured through MMTC against security deposited with MMTC, and over a period of time, a total security deposit was lying with MMTC. DRI commenced investigation into alleged fraudulent diversion of gold jewellery meant for export. In the process of investigation, DRI issued letter to the MMTC that "security money or bond or bank guarantee deposited with your office" by a string of firms including assessee should not be released to these parties without the permission of DRI. During the course of such investigation, assessee was compelled to deposit customs duty. Grievance of assessee was that for more than three years, MMTC was constrained not to release the BG/security furnished by assessee. *Held:* Even assuming that assessee failed to appear on the dates fixed in those proceedings, Adjudicating Officer was supposed to proceed and pass the adjudication order in accordance with law. The Court finds no justification in law for continuation of the instructions of the DRI to MMTC. The said instructions were quashed. MMTC would now proceed in the matter as if the two instructions, the DRI are no longer operational. MMTC should release the security/BG amount to assessee to the extent it was entitled in accordance with law. As far as the SCN was concerned, if no further hearings were contemplated, Adjudication Officer should proceed to pass the adjudication order not later than three months from today in accordance with law. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(EX) 398 2019 (367) E.L.T. 404

Ambika Vikas Udyog v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Delhi Zonal Unit & Anr.

CUSTOMS ACT, 1962

--Seizure--SmugglingGold jewellery meant for export----Since the Court finds no justification in law for continuation of the instructions of the DRI to MMTC, the said instructions were quashed and security/BG amount should be released to assessee to the extent it was entitled in accordance with law. As far as the SCN was concerned, if no further hearings were contemplated, Adjudication Officer should proceed to pass the adjudication order not later than three months from today in accordance with law.--Assessee was in the business of export of gold jewellery. The gold for making such jewellery was procured by assessee from MMTC. According to assessee, it was making gold jewellery exports out of the gold procured through MMTC against security deposited with MMTC, and over a period of time, a total security deposit was lying with MMTC. DRI commenced investigation into alleged fraudulent diversion of gold jewellery meant for export. In the process of investigation, DRI issued letter to the MMTC that "security money or bond or bank guarantee deposited with your office" by a string of firms including assessee should not be released to these parties without the permission of DRI. During the course of such investigation, assessee was compelled to deposit customs duty. Grievance of assessee was that for more than three years, MMTC was constrained not to release the BG/security furnished by assessee. Held: Even assuming that assessee failed to appear on the dates fixed in those proceedings, Adjudicating Officer was supposed to proceed and pass the adjudication order in accordance with law. The Court finds no justification in law for continuation of the instructions of the DRI to MMTC. The said instructions were quashed. MMTC would now proceed in the matter as if the two instructions, the DRI are no longer operational. MMTC should release the security/BG amount to assessee to the extent it was entitled in accordance with law. As far as the SCN was concerned, if no further hearings were contemplated, Adjudication Officer should proceed to pass the adjudication order not later than three months from today in accordance with law.