TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish bank guarantee to the value of differential duty to be determined by the authority, in order to safeguard the interest of the Department. The appellant is directed to release the subject goods on furnishing of bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/- towards differential duty, by the respondent. It is made clear that this interim arrangement would be made only to safeguard the interest of both parties; and the bank guarantee to be furnished by the respondent is kept alive, till the decision is arrived at with regard to validity of the notification no.5/2023 dated 08.05.2023. Appeal disposed off. - Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq For the Appellant : Mr.K.Umesh Rao For the Respondent : Mr.Sathish Sundar for Mr.S.Krishnanand JUDGMENT R. MAHADEVAN, J. This writ appeal is directed against the interim order passed by the learned Judge in WP.No.24343 of 2023 on 17.08.2023. For the sake of clarity and specificity, the relevant paragraphs of the same are extracted below: 2. In a similar case, this Court has granted interim relief in WP(MD)Nos.5564 to 5566 of 2022. Incidentally, the vires of No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... damus, to call for the records in connection with order-in-original No.102796/2023 dated 14.07.2023 passed by the appellant authority, quash the same and to further direct the appellant to release the imported goods and to issue detention certificate for waiver of demurrage and container detention charges in terms of Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 17.08.2023, following the earlier order of this Court and in view of the stay order against the notification no.5/2023 dated 08.05.2023 passed by the Kerala High Court as well by this Court, the learned Judge has granted an order of interim direction to the appellant to assess and release of the goods covered under the bill of entry No.6592170 dated 26.06.2023, as the imported goods are prone to deterioration. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this court with the present appeal. 5. The main contention of Mr.K.Umesh Rao, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant is that by notification no.5/2023 dated 08.05.2023, the fresh apples, whose CIF value is below Rs. 50/- per kg, stood prohibited from import. Knowing fully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of action, a writ petition questioning the constitutionality thereof can be filed in any High Court of the country. It is not so done because a cause of action will arise only when the provisions of the Act or some of them which were implemented shall give rise to civil or evil consequences to the petitioner. A writ court, it is well settled would not determine a constitutional question in vacuum. 22. The court must have the requisite territorial jurisdiction. An order passed on writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act whether Interim or final keeping in view the provisions contained in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have effect throughout the territory of India subject of course to the applicability of the Act. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the order of confiscation passed by the appellant lacks legal sanctity due to the operation of the stay order. The learned counsel further submitted that considering the fact that the subject goods are perishable in nature and are meant for human consumption, the respondent, without prejudice to his contention, is ready and willing to execute bank guarantee for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in respect of the notification no.5/2023 dated 08.05.2023 dealing with minimum pricing for import of apple. Further, in similar circumstances in M/s.Delhi Photocopiers v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and others in SLP.(C) No.7565 of 2021 by order dated 11.08.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered for provisional release of the goods, on terms, and complete the process of adjudication within a fixed time frame. For better appreciation, the said order is reproduced below: We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) and Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent(s) at length. On 05.07.2021, this Court had issued notice in these matters. Despite the fact that the matter was pending before this Court, the Department went ahead and confiscated the goods which are the subject matter of these petitions on 17.07.2021. Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned ASG, realizing the difficulty in his way, has asked the Department to stay its hands so far as the confiscation 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
