100% Bank Guarantee Cannot Be Foisted: Bombay HC Orders Provisional Release Of Consignments
The Bombay High Court ordered a provisional release of the consignment of a company by the Customs Office holding that harsh and unreasonable conditions of 100% bank guarantee cannot be foisted.
The petitioner being a proprietorship regularly importing premium cold coffee from Vietnam sought provisional release of two consignments held by the Customs Office. The petitioner argued that the said goods were incurring demurrage and that the detention was arbitrary and illegal.
A Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed, “The petitioner ought not to have been meted out such discriminatory treatment of denying clearance. Also it is imperative that harsh and unreasonable conditions cannot be imposed and more so when there is not an iota of material on the part of the department, as placed before the Court indicating as to why a different yardstick would be required to be applied to the present consignments when earlier seven consignments were released.”
Advocate Kashish Gupta represented the petitioner, while Advocate Advait Sethna appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner argued that their imports were released in the past and there was no reason that the same product was being differently treated by the Customs Office. The petitioner also contended that there was no reason for a different yardstick to be applied in demanding a hefty bank guarantee from the petitioner when earlier, seven consignments were released on a much lesser bank guarantee.
The Customs Office had argued that the goods were under investigation by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB). However, the Court noted that there is nothing on record to show why the goods were subjected to any investigation.
The Court considered that the imports of the petitioner were consistent and the goods in question were edible and perishable goods. Therefore, the Court directed the Customs Office to grant provisional release of the goods to the company by accepting a bank guarantee in respect of the bills of entry.
The Court stated that “it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner is permitted to have the provisional release of goods…what would weigh with us is the consistent position taken by the department in respect of the earlier release of the goods.”
The Court held, “The petitioner ought not to have been meted out such discriminatory treatment of denying clearance.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: M/s. SCK International v. Commissioner of Customs (Nhava Sheva-V) & Ors. (2024:BHC-AS:6919-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Kashish Gupta and Nikita Sheth
Respondents: Advocates Advait Sethna and Sangeeta Yadav
