TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cence, which has been suspended by the Licensing Authorities at Ahmedabad as the same was prima facie found to be obtained fraudulently. The facts : The facts giving rise to the present petition, in nutshell, are as under : 2.The petitioner is holder of Advance Licence bearing No. P/K/3489550, dated 15th November, 1994 having purchased the same for a valuable consideration of Rs. 144,600/- from the original licensor one M/s. Omkar Exports of Ahmedabad, a Government recognised export house. Under the said licence import of Polyester Yarn to the extent of 30,800 Kgs was allowed. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the said licence as per the Import Export Policy, 1992-97 following procedure provided in the procedure of hand- book a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector of Customs and seized the consignment comprising of goods and refused to permit delivery of goods to the petitioner. The respondents also refused to accept the licence produced by the petitioner as valid licence for import of the subject goods. This act of the respondents is being challenged in this Petition contending that the goods having been imported much prior to the suspension of licence and the petitioner being bona fide purchaser of the licence without notice of the alleged fraud alleged to have been committed by the original licence holder/transferor, the imports made him could not be held to be illegal. At the time when the petition was filed, the petitioner had placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d after the import of goods was completed. Same is the situation in the case in hand. Under these circumstances, having heard rival parties, we are in agreement with the submissions made by the petitioner that the issue in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Taparia Overseas v. Union of India (supra) and the petitioner is liable to succeed on merits. 7.At this juncture, it will not be out of place to mention that when this petition was filed, rule was issued on 20th October, 1995 and pending final disposal of the petition, clearance of the goods was allowed on payment of duty under protest. It was also made clear that if, ultimately, the Court passes order that amount is liable to be refunded to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
