9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rused the same and find that before conducting the search at the premises of the petitioner, reasons were duly recorded. The file has been returned to the counsel for the respondent. Adjourned to 18-7-2006 for arguments. In the meantime, it is directed as under : (i) The goods, which are lying seized in the factory of the petitioner, on which duty had been paid at the time of import thereof, shall be released to the petitioner on his furnishing bank guarantee to the extent of duty leviable on the goods by assessing the value thereof @ US$ 1000 per metric ton. However, the amount of duty already paid by the petitioner on these goods shall be reduced. (ii) As far as the goods lying at the port are concerned, the same shall be released to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot been released to the petitioners. Accordingly, Joint Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana was directed to appear in person on 25-7-2006 to show cause as to why proceedings of contempt be not initiated against him. 5. Counsel for the petitioners informed that in spite of clear directions of this Court for release of the goods by taking the bank guarantee to the extent of duty leviable on the goods by assessing the value thereof @ US$ 1000 per metric ton, the respondent, vide communication dated 5-7-2006, directed the petitioners to furnish bank guarantee of 25% of the market value of the seized goods in addition to the bank guarantee, as directed by this Court vide order dated 15-6-2006 The relevant extract of that com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt on 15-6-2006 is concerned, clear direction of this Court was that the goods lying seized in the factory of the petitioners, on which duty has been paid at the time of import, were to be released on furnishing bank guarantee to the extent of difference of duty leviable by assessing the value of the goods @ US$ 1000 per metric ton, reducing there from the duty already paid by the petitioner, whereas the goods lying at the port were concerned, the duty, as assessed by the petitioners, was to be paid and bank guarantee of the difference in duty leviable by assessing the value thereof @ US$ 1000 per metric ton was to be furnished. As against this, vide communication dated 5-7-2006, the respondent put another condition for furnishing of bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
