TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying with the other formalities as per law, the respondents are directed to provisionally release the goods in question for re-export. The writ petition has been disposed off. - CWP-12251-2021(O&M) - - - Dated:- 13-8-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present :- Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tajender Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. This petition has been filed against the alleged act of omission by the Customs Department in not giving effect to the order passed by the Appellate Authority whereby it has been directed that the goods be released provisionally for re-export, sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of those goods which had been sent abroad. It was further asserted that the respondents were considering the action of filing an appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority, the limitation of which is still available and further that all the samples drawn had not yet been tested and that the Insecticides Board had also initiated investigation into the matter. It was further asserted that in law, the penalty of up to five times (on the real value of the goods) could be imposed for this act on the petitioner and criminal proceedings could and have been actually initiated against the petitioner and it was consequently prayed that provisional release even for the purpose of re-export should not be permitted. Learned Senior counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... z. 'Sulphur Formulation' and if now the respondents permit the petitioner to re-dispatch the goods under that nomenclature it would mean that the respondents have accepted the same. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that he is ready to make a statement that the nomenclature used for re-dispatching the goods would not bind the department and in case it is found that the goods are actually different, then the mere fact that the petitioner has been allowed to re-dispatch them under the same nomenclature will not bind the respondents. The learned Senior Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court, an order dated 15.01.2021 (P-37) vide which the Commissioner of Customs had in another matter permit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en taken by the Authorities. Moreover, the petitioner is a 100% export-oriented unit and thus, any difference in the declaration of the value of the goods to be exported by the petitioner would not make much difference, as the petitioner would be entitled to seek 100% refund of the duty paid. However, while balancing the rights of the petitioner with the interest of the revenue, we dispose of the present writ petition in the following terms: - (i) The petitioner is directed to furnish a bond amounting to ₹ 15 crores. (ii) That within seven days of the petitioner submitting the said bond and complying with the other formalities as per law, the respondents are directed to provisionally release the goods in question for re-ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
