9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1031 - HC - CustomsRelease of bank guarantee - EPCG Scheme - N/N. 44/95 - Held that - the petitioner is a victim of technicalities. It may be true that on the date when the first respondent adjudicated the show cause notice, the petitioner did not have the requisite certificates. However, the certificates have been issued by the Competent Authority - the certificates are in the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner s case should be considered and the certificates should be examined and if they are found to be proper and valid, necessary relief as a consequence thereof should be granted - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal for breach of EPCG Scheme conditions, release of bank guarantee, withdrawal of appeal before Tribunal without liberty to reagitate the matter. Analysis: The petitioner sought to quash the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal related to the breach of conditions under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG Scheme) and requested the release of a bank guarantee. The petitioner failed to produce the required export obligation discharge certificate within the stipulated time, leading to a demand for duty payment. Despite later obtaining the certificates, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to withdrawal without reserving liberty to reagitate the matter. The High Court noted that the petitioner had the necessary certificates issued by the Competent Authority and should be considered for relief. The Court emphasized that the delay's cause was not under examination at that stage, but the possession of valid certificates by the petitioner warranted due consideration. The Court set aside the impugned orders, remitting the matter back to the first respondent to evaluate the certificates and proceed with the bank guarantee release if found valid, within six weeks of the petitioner's approach with the original certificate. The Court clarified that this decision should not serve as a precedent for future cases and closed the related applications without imposing costs.
|
