9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econd respondent herein issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, wherein it alleged that the import of certain articles require a licence and required the petitioner to produce the materials relating to the import it has made between 2009 and 2014. The petitioner has issued its reply dated 17.05.2019, wherein it is stated that, (a) the articles that it had imported are used in multi various industries, and no licence was required; (b) that, it is the Customs Authority, who would be issuing licence for import of these articles, and they have not indicated the need for obtaining the licence and indeed, they have even cleared the goods. On the same day, the petitioner also appeared before the Authority and on the same day the petitioner&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry dated 19.01.2021 and 23.08.2022. On both the imports, the petitioner had paid necessary import duties, and the customs authority too had allowed the petitioner to clear the goods. Since the status quo ante was restored, the petitioner withdrew W.A.No.4071 of 2019 on 02.08.2022. 6. It is in this circumstances, the petitioner submits that they have been prevented from importing any goods, and this time even without a formal proceedings of any statutory authority. All which has been done is an oral instruction and the petitioner has not been heard at any time in this matter. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Drug Rules 1945, made under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the licence has to be obtained by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y made by the petitioner with the connivance of the Customs Authority. 9.2. While the petitioner had impleaded the Customs Authority in all the earlier petitions, in the instant case, he has conveniently chosen not to implead it. When the respondent got wind of this, it ensured that the IE Code is suspended. So far as the petitioner's allegation that Section 8 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 was not applied is concerned, the order dated 28.10.2019 passed by the JDGFT, Bangalore shows that Section 8 of the said Act has been complied more than adequately by the Authorities. 10. When this Court sought some clarification from the petitioner as to how the petitioner's suspension order during the pendency of W. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
