9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Challenge against the order for confiscation of seized rig and encashment of bank guarantee under Customs Act, 1962. Petitioner's request to restrain respondent from encashing bank guarantee pending appeal. Interpretation of policy on coercive recovery during appeal period. Validity of bank guarantee from a foreign bank. Analysis: 1. The petition challenged the order confiscating a seized rig and directing encashment of a bank guarantee under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner sought direction to prevent encashment pending appeal. The petitioner's counsel limited the relief sought to this specific issue during the hearing. 2. The petitioner argued that the impugned order should not allow immediate encashment of the bank guarantee, as it is appealable. The petitioner relied on precedents like Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India and N.G. Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, where courts restrained encashment before the appeal period expired. 3. The Revenue contended that the bank guarantee was from a foreign bank and argued for dismissal of the petition, stating that the encashment could proceed once the assessment order was final. The court noted the Revenue's acceptance and use of the foreign bank guarantee without prior objection. 4. After hearing both parties, the court acknowledged the appealable nature of the impugned order and the Revenue's policy against coercive recovery during the appeal period. The court found the Revenue's argument regarding the foreign bank guarantee's validity unconvincing given their prior acceptance and lack of objections. 5. The court granted limited relief to the petitioner, directing the respondent not to encash the bank guarantee until the appeal was filed with a stay application before the Tribunal. The petitioner was given four weeks to file the appeal, and the court emphasized the importance of considering the application for stay or waiver of pre-deposit by the Appellate Authority. 6. The court clarified that its decision was based on the encashment issue during the appeal period and did not delve into the merits of the case. The order was subject to the Tribunal's independent decision on the stay application, and the petitioner was required to maintain the bank guarantee until the Tribunal's decision. 7. Ultimately, the petition was allowed, and the court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The court's decision was based on previous court views and was not stayed, as it aligned with established legal principles. The judgment concluded without any costs imposed on either party.
|
