ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) THIS petition seeks quashing of seizure Memo (Panchnamas) dated 10.7.2008, 11.7.2008, 15.7.2008 and 22.7.2008, Annexures P.2, P.5, P.7 and P.12 and provisional release letter dated 25.7.2008, Annexure P.14. Further prayer is to direct release of goods of the petitioner lying seized at its godowns and at Port and also for a direction to return sum of Rs. 2 crores deposited under coercion and threat.
(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that in August/September 2007, he imported 14 consignments of 1843 MT EVA. He declared value of the goods to be USD 1100- 1156 PMT. The department enhanced value from USD 1100 to USD 1560 PMT. The petitioner paid assessed duty under protest and sought passing of a speaking order under section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner also paid about Rs. 1 crore as custom duty. In March/June 2008, the petitioner again imported EVA and DCP and filed Bill of entry. The Assessing Officer permitted clearance of goods after revising the value on the basis of contemporaneous import. On 10.7.2008, representative of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence conducted search at the business premises of the petitioner. On account of ill-health and fearing arrest, the Managing Director deposited Rs. 2 crores. On 11.7.2008, representative respondent No. 2 seized material lying at the godown of the petitioner, which was 2833 MT. The petitioner requested for release of goods on 15.7.2008 reiterating the value declared. On 15.7.2008, again representative of respondent No. 2 seized the material which was received after the first seizure. The Commissioner of Customs, Bombay vide letter dated 16.7.2008 restrained the petitioner from removing the goods covered by bills of entry dated 30.6.2008. Out of the said goods, part of the goods had already reached Delhi and Panipat, while the remaining 192 MT material was still in the process of loading at dry port. The petitioner was asked to submit details of the seized material which was complied by the petitioner.
(3.) ON 22.7.2008, the petitioner sought release of goods against deposit of Rs. 2 crores already made but respondent No. 2 further seized material lying in Panipat godown.;