9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter Exporter Code No.4606000066 of the petitioner Company, a Unit in Vishakhapatnam SEZ. The petitioner Company appealed against the said order to the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade Act. 2. That the petitioner Company prior to imposition of the penalty aforesaid entered into an agreement for purchase on High Seas, of Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) for a total sale consideration of Rs. 72 crores. The petitioner Company claims to have been unable to pay the said sale consideration and was thus unable to have the said imported goods released which are claimed to be incurring demurrage. The petitioner Company further claims that the foreign seller of the said goods has agreed to take back the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t again arisen and in which regard this application has been filed in the disposed of writ petition. Notice of this application was issued and a reply thereto is handed over in the Court and is taken on record. 7. It is recorded in our order dated 12th April, 2012 disposing of the writ petition that the assets of the petitioner Company of which security was directed to be given in the form of a bond, are mortgaged with the State Bank of India (SBI) which is holding a first charge over the said assets. Notwithstanding the same, the goods (FAME) aforesaid were permitted to be exported on the security of the same assets, on twofold argument of the counsel for the petitioner Company. It was submitted that the penalty if ultimately found recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the respondents would be left 'high and dry'. 9. We may also notice another development which has taken place since our order dated 12th April, 2012 disposing of this writ petition. The Appellate Authority has decided the appeal preferred by the petitioner Company against the order of imposition of penalty, by remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for consideration in the light of 'additional arguments' raised by the petitioner Company. Though the said order of the Appellate Authority is ambiguous, as to whether the earlier order of the Adjudicating Authority imposing the penalty stands set aside or not and in which regard permission has been granted to the petitioner Company to seek clarification from the Appellate Aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein; d. by permitting the respondents to inform the SBI of the aforesaid, to ensure compliance. We direct accordingly. 11. Though we had in our order dated 12th April, 2012 directed furnishing of a bond by the petitioner Company to the Adjudicating Authority and draft/form of which bond was to be supplied by the respondents to the petitioner Company but it appears that the respondents instead of a 'bond' supplied a draft of a 'mortgage deed' to be executed by the petitioner Company. The learned ASG has also argued that the said mortgage deed is to be registered. The petitioner Company claims to have already submitted a bond-cum-legal undertaking in terms of our order 12th April, 2012 with the respondents. 12. The purport of our order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
