9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the import license and expiration date. 2. Prohibition on importing canalised items. 3. Delay in shipment due to unavoidable circumstances. 4. Refusal of authorities to vacate interim orders. 5. Dispute over the quantum of security to be furnished. 6. Appointment of a Receiver for selling goods. 7. Modification of bank guarantee terms and cash deposit. 8. Renewal of bank guarantee till final disposal of proceedings. 9. Initiation and completion of adjudication proceedings by Customs Authorities. 10. Concluding the application and appeal with specific directions. Analysis: 1. The judgment concerns a dispute over the import of palm stearine by a registered Export House under an issued license. The license validity and expiration date were contested, with the importer arguing for a six-month extension considering a grace period, while authorities claimed the license had expired at the time of import. 2. Authorities contended that palm stearine, a canalised item, could only be imported through specific channels, and the importer was not entitled to import or release such goods. The importer argued that successive import policies preserved the right to import under the license and cited similar releases by authorities in the past. 3. The delay in shipment was attributed to a nationwide port workers' strike, leading to the consignment not being shipped as scheduled. The importer sought court intervention through writ applications and obtained interim orders for the release of goods subject to certain conditions. 4. Despite provisional assessment and payment of customs duty by the importer, authorities moved to vacate the interim orders. The court refused the prayer, leading to an appeal by the authorities, who raised objections regarding the license coverage, nature of the imported goods, and expiration date. 5. The parties could not agree on the quantum of security to be furnished for the release of goods. Various proposals were discussed, including the calculation of profit margins and the appointment of a Receiver for selling the goods, but no consensus was reached. 6. Ultimately, the court ordered the substitution of bank guarantees, a cash deposit, and the release of goods upon fulfillment of specified conditions. The order aimed to resolve the dispute while ensuring compliance with customs regulations and the protection of the parties' rights and interests. 7. Specific directions were given regarding the renewal of bank guarantees, initiation of adjudication proceedings by Customs Authorities, and the completion of proceedings within a stipulated timeframe. The judgment concluded by vacating all interim orders and instructing parties to act in accordance with the court's directives.
|
