9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 641 - HC - CustomsSeeking direction to respondents to cancel and return back the Bank Guarantee, which was executed towards the clearance of goods - SCN and order in original was quashed on the ground of jurisdiction of DRI - HELD THAT - For whatever reason, the adjudication proceedings issued against the petitioner dated 25.09.2019 has been quashed or set aside by the orders of this Court dated 25.10.2021 - Subsequently, if there is any review of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT , it goes without saying that, depending upon the outcome of the decision, what shall be the further consequential action, can be decided and that may be indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, as on date, since there has been no adjudication proceedings pending against the petitioner and that has been set aside in the eye of law, the respondents cannot hold the Bank Guarantee given by the petitioner without any authority. Therefore, this Court feels that the prayer sought for in this writ petition can be considered and granted. There shall be a direction to the respondents to return back the Bank Guarantee for an amount of ₹ 7,49,088/- issued by Axis Bank, Purasawalkam, Branch, Chennai BG, which was executed towards the clearance of goods, covered under Bill of Entry both dated 06.10.2017 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Writ of Mandamus sought for the return of Bank Guarantee 2. Challenge to adjudication order 3. Law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canon India case 4. Proper officer under the Customs Act 5. Authority to retain Bank Guarantee Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus for the return of a Bank Guarantee issued by Axis Bank towards the clearance of goods. The adjudication order against the petitioner was challenged, and subsequent proceedings led to the disposal of various writ petitions by a learned Judge, following the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canon India case. 2. The Order-in-Original was set aside based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Canon India case, which highlighted that the proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) official, not customs authorities, were invalid. Consequently, the Bank Guarantee could not be retained by the respondents once the adjudication order was deemed void. 3. The respondents argued that the fate of the Bank Guarantee depended on pending review applications before the Supreme Court, and finality could only be reached after the Supreme Court's decision. However, since the adjudication proceedings were no longer valid, the Court held that the respondents could not hold the Bank Guarantee without authority, leading to the decision to grant the prayer for its return. 4. The Court ordered the respondents to return the Bank Guarantee within two weeks, emphasizing that as there were no pending adjudication proceedings against the petitioner, the retention of the Bank Guarantee was unjustified. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal authority in holding such guarantees and the need to comply with the law as established by the Supreme Court. 5. In conclusion, the writ petition was ordered in favor of the petitioner, directing the return of the Bank Guarantee without any costs. The judgment underscored the significance of legal validity in adjudication proceedings and the adherence to established legal principles as determined by higher courts.
|
