TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank Guarantee' given by the petitioner cannot be returned by them. The 'Bank Guarantee' was given by the petitioner only for the purpose of securing the interest of the respondents and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, in respect of the stolen goods - Admittedly, the stolen goods are now very much available with the forest department which in all likelihood will be returned back to the respondents in accordance with law. This Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by the retention of 'Bank Guarantee'. Being a commercial establishment, the said amount of ₹ 6,79,50,000/- for which the 'Bank Guarantee' was issued will be useful for the petitioner for his day-to-day bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of Interim Stay for the suspension of the license. 3. Aggrieved by the interim order granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner, the respondent preferred a writ Appeal in W.A.(MD) No.673 of 2018 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, after consideration, remanded the matter back to the learned single Judge of this Court for fresh consideration. After the remand by the Division Bench, by order dated 02.08.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.5052 of 2018, the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of this Writ Petition by passing the following order:- 23. Therefore, considering the subsequent developments, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders: (i) The order of interim stay granted by this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /48/85/2018-Cus.Pol)- order in original No.1 of 2019 has passed an order and has refrained from taking action under Regulation 11 of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations (HCCAR), 2009 for revocation of license granted to the petitioner. However, for the violation of the provisions of HCARR 2009, the first respondent held the petitioner liable for penal action under Regulations 12(8) of HCCAR, 2009. The first respondent also imposed a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on the petitioner for violation of regulations 12(8) of the HCCAR, 2009. Thereafter, the petitioner has paid the penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed by the first respondent under its final order dated 10.01.2019. 6. According to the petitioner, a clear finding in par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the petitioner is that, though the police has confirmed the identity of the goods, the forest department who are now holding the custody of the impugned goods have neither confirmed the identity of the goods nor returned the impugned goods. Therefore, according to them, since the identity of the goods is yet to be confirmed and the custody of the goods are yet to be transferred to the respondents, the 'Bank Guarantee' executed for compensation of the fiscal loss to the Government cannot be considered for release. Further, it is their contention that the findings of the adjudicating authority by order dated 10.01.2019 is only to arrive at a decision as to whether the petitioner has violated the provisions of HCCAR, 2009 or not and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Red Sanders which were stolen from the petitioner premises have been seized by the forest department and they are very much available now. Paragraph 29.3 of the order dated 10.01.2019 is extracted hereunder: 29.3. From the above Police report, I find that the red sanders which were stolen by the culprits from the premises of the noticee have subsequently been seized by forest officers. The confession statements of the accused, the seizure mahazar effected by Forest Department and the police investigation report all confirm the fact that the red sanders seized by Forest Department on 02.05.2015 were the goods stolen from the Hari Co CFS earlier. 11. The fact that the stolen goods have been seized and is now lying with the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a fly-by-night operator, as they are having a good business at Tuticorin Port. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the materials placed on record and after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by the retention of 'Bank Guarantee'. Being a commercial establishment, the said amount of ₹ 6,79,50,000/- for which the 'Bank Guarantee' was issued will be useful for the petitioner for his day-to-day business, instead of remaining idle without benefiting both the parties. 14. In the interest of justice, the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the second respondent rejecting the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
