TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on dated 01.04.2020 is the subject matter of controversy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly in view of the subsequent notification dated 18.03.2021. Therefore, the goods which are in question were allowed to be released by way of provisional release on the same terms and conditions, which means, the enhanced duty has to be paid by the petitioners/importers as a condition precedent for getting release of these goods by way of provisional release. Therefore, as of now, unmindful of the pendency of the litigations with regard to the applicability or otherwise of the notifications, namely notification dated 01.04.2020 or 18.03.2021, independently the prayer sought for by way of Mandamus can be considered and granted, because of the aforestated judgment, where, the learned Single Judge M/S. BEST MEGA INTERNATIONAL VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GR. 5) , THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GR. 5) , THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GR. 5) , THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA [ 2021 (2) TMI 826 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S DELHI PHOTOCOPIERS VERSUS THE COMMIS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t petitions are covered by the earlier decision of this Court, which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. He has brought to the notice of this Court that, in fact, similar issue had come up for consideration before this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.8574 of 2020, etc., batch in the matter of M/s. Best Mega International Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and others , where a learned Judge of this Court by a common order dated 25.01.2021 having considered these aspects, where also similarly placed persons sought for a Mandamus for releasing of the similar goods by way of provisional release, had passed the following order : 16. I summarise the discussion below: i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently taken a view in favour of provisional release in such cases, noticing that in identical cases, release has been ordered and there would be no justification to take a contra view in a few cases alone. ii) The issue on merits has been held in favour of the assesse by a Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in the case of RR Marketing (supra) and there is no stay of this order by the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is concerned. We see no reason to differ from a number of orders that have been passed by this Court in the past for provisional release of goods. However, it has been pointed out to us that at least on and from 01.04.2020, the goods, according to the Department, are clearly prohibited goods and on and from this date, unless an order is made under Section 125, the goods must stand confiscated. We stay the confiscation of these goods. The Notification dated 01.04.2020 is the subject matter of controversy before this Court, particularly in view of a subsequent Notification dated 18.03.2021 that has been pointed out by Mr.Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel. We, therefore, allow the goods involved in these petitions, to be provisionally released on the same terms that have been indicated in all the other cases. The order dated 18.09.2020 may, in particular, be looked at for this purpose. In view of above, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. 9. Relying upon these decisions, the learned Senior Counsel would point out that, in these cases also, since the petitioners sought for a provisional r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of these factors, where the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that, on and from 01.04.2020, the goods, according to the Department, are clearly prohibited goods and on and from that date, unless an order is made under Section 125 of the Customs Act, the goods stands confiscated, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stayed the confiscation process and also has observed that, the notification dated 01.04.2020 is the subject matter of controversy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly in view of the subsequent notification dated 18.03.2021. Therefore, the goods which are in question were allowed to be released by way of provisional release on the same terms and conditions, which means, the enhanced duty has to be paid by the petitioners/importers as a condition precedent for getting release of these goods by way of provisional release. 15. Therefore, as of now, unmindful of the pendency of the litigations with regard to the applicability or otherwise of the notifications, namely notification dated 01.04.2020 or 18.03.2021, independently the prayer sought for by way of Mandamus can be considered and granted, because of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
