9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition is to the two notices dated 31 December, 1999 and 10 January, 2002, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of ₹ 1,51,999/-, failing which action under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') is proposed to be taken against them. 2. Briefly stated the material facts leading to the filing of the present petition are : In January, 1994, the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le reasons they could not do so and the goods could be re-exported only in January, 1996. Thus, the condition of re-export within six months, stipulated in the guarantee bond, having been breached, a notice under Section 28 read with Section 142 is alleged to have been issued to the petitioner for realisation of the balance amount of duty. 3. The main ground of challenge to the said notices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the parties. 6. Although, Mr. Jain, learned Central Government standing counsel has vehemently attempted to support the impugned letters, seeking to recover the balance amount of duty, but he has not been able to dispute the fact that a notice under Section 28 of the Act had not been issued to the petitioner before invoking Section 142 of the Act. Rather, he very fairly states that withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from today. The petitioner will be free to file its reply within four weeks of the receipt of the notice.
9. It goes without saying that it will be open to the petitioner to urge all the grounds as may be available to them in accordance with law, including the one raised in the present petition, in support of its stand.
10. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
