TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contend that the respondents cannot detain the petitioner s consignment on the basis of the minimum price as fixed by the said notification - thus, there is no reason as to why the petitioner ought not to be permitted to clear the goods. It is directed that the imports of the petitioner, which are the subject matter of Bill of Entry No. 8876300 dated 22/11/2023 and Bill of Entry No. 8940516 dated 25/11/2023 be not detained on the ground that these goods are prohibited goods under Notification No. 5/2023, and, on such count, be released on the petitioner furnishing a bond - petition disposed off. - G. S. KULKARNI FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Anand S. Patil. For the Respondents : Mr. Jitendra B. Mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g) Pass such further Order and other relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. 4. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the consignment of apples, which is the subject matter of the present petition, is not being cleared by the respondent customs on the ground that the same is hit by the Notification No. 5/2023. It is contended that such notification is sought to be foisted by the department on the Petitioner when the same is neither attracted nor applicable. He submits that in regard to similar imports, the proceedings were considered by this Court initially in the case of M/s. Indusina Exmi LLP vs Union of India Anr. WP/22281/2023 dtd. 11.07.2023., and subsequently in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is sought to be foisted on the petitioner, is not applicable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that similar issue had arisen before the Kerala High Court in M/s. Indusina Exim LLP vs. Union of India Anr. Writ Petition No. 22281 of 2023 dated 11 July, 2023, who had also imported apples and had challenged the said notification. The Kerala High Court by an order dated 11 July, 2023 had stayed the said notification and, accordingly, permitted provisional release of apples as imported by M/s. Indusina Exim LLP (supra). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would thus submit that apart from the petitioner being not affected by the said notification, the petition would also stand covered by such order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing the bond. 7. We may also observe that the revenue had filed a Review Petition No. 107 of 2023 praying for review of the aforesaid order dated 8 December, 2023, which came to be rejected by a detailed order dated 14 December, 2023 passed by this Court. 8. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed this petition on the ground that the petitioner has waived a show cause notice and in fact an order is recently passed whereby the goods have been confiscated. It is stated to be dated 18 December, 2023. However, the petitioner has not been served with a copy of the order. It is stated that an email was forwarded to the petitioner enclosing such order as also by a speed post. However, such order is not placed bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imports of apples by traders throughout the country considering the settled principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering that the imports are perishable in nature, we are inclined to allow this petition in terms of the following order: ORDER (i) We direct that the imports of the petitioner subject matter of Bill of Entry No. 8854586 dated 20 November, 2023, be released on the petitioner furnishing a bond. (ii) An appropriate assessment of the bill of entry be accordingly undertaken in accordance with law within a period of three days from today. 12. Disposed of in the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
