2021 (5) TMI 553 - HC - Customs

Permission for withdrawal of petition - job-work - request made for export of the goods from the job worker premise is rejected - HELD THAT - The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. It is directed that if the appeal is filed by the petitioner within a period of three weeks, the same shall be decided on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Withdrawal of permission for job work and rejection of export request.
2. Appealability of the impugned order under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Request for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file an appeal.
4. Seizure of finished goods during the pendency of the petition and maintenance of status quo.

Analysis:
1. The petition challenged the order withdrawing permission for job work and rejecting the export request. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents did not oppose this request, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal within three weeks. The Court emphasized the petitioner's bona fide pursuit of remedy before the Court, ensuring the appeal, if filed within the stipulated time, would be decided on merits after providing an opportunity for a hearing.

2. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the appealability of the impugned order under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged the objection and requested permission to withdraw the petition to file an appeal. The Court noted the time-sensitive nature of the appeal due to potential limitation issues and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its merits if filed within three weeks, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to statutory provisions.

3. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the seizure of finished goods (marble slabs) by the respondents during the petition's pendency. In response, the Court issued an interim order on 5.3.2020 to maintain the status quo regarding the seized goods. The Court further extended this directive for an additional three weeks to address the ongoing situation and preserve the rights and interests of the petitioner pending the appeal process.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the withdrawal of the petition, the appealability of the impugned order, the maintenance of status quo regarding seized goods, and the importance of adhering to statutory remedies and timelines under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court's decision aimed to balance the interests of both parties while upholding procedural fairness and legal principles.