Case Details: Nakoda Trade Point vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Chennai (2026) 43 Centax 373 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Mohammed Shaffiq, J.
- S/Shri Shravan kochar for B. Satish Sundar, for the Petitioner.
- Shri S. Gurumoorthy, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a proprietorship engaged in the domestic trading of maize and maize popcorn under GST registration, stored goods in cold storage at Chennai. During searches conducted by the DRI, 1,065 bags of maize popcorn bearing foreign markings indicating Nepal origin were found and seized on suspicion of smuggling without payment of customs duty. The petitioner claimed that the goods had been procured domestically against GST invoices and sought provisional release of the seized goods. The Principal Commissioner permitted provisional release subject to execution of a bond for the full value of the goods and furnishing of a bank guarantee equivalent to 100% of the alleged duty payable. The petitioner challenged only the condition requiring a 100% bank guarantee before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the requirement to furnish a bank guarantee equal to 100% of the alleged duty payable was onerous, particularly when the petitioner claimed domestic procurement of the goods against GST invoices. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Navashakti Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (26) E.L.T. A146 (S.C.), the Court modified the condition by directing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to 30% of the duty payable. It further held that all other conditions stipulated in the provisional release order would remain unchanged.
List of Cases Cited
Commissioner v. Navashakti Inds. Pvt. Ltd. — 2011 (26) E.L.T. A146 (S.C.) — Followed [Paras 6, 8]
