9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 384 - HC - CustomsRight to apply for a license to import the raw materials from any foreign country for the purpose of manufacture of the goods in India and thereafter, export the same - applicant has been placed in the Denied Entity List (DEL) - HELD THAT - If the matter is taken up for hearing by the Supreme Court and is decided then that would enable this Court to accordingly proceed further in this matter. For the time being, post this matter on 21.04.2022 on top of the Board.
Issues:
1. Challenge to being placed in the "Denied Entity List" 2. Status of judgment challenged before the Supreme Court 3. Effect of declaration of a provision as ultra vires on pending judgments 4. Absence of show cause notice for recovery 5. Possibility of issuing a provisional license Analysis: 1. The writ applicants contested their placement in the "Denied Entity List," preventing them from importing raw materials for manufacturing goods in India for export. The foundation of their case lies in a previous judgment by the High Court, which is now under challenge before the Supreme Court. 2. The respondent, represented by Mr. Vyas, highlighted that the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the High Court's judgment in a related matter. The case is scheduled for a final hearing on 13.04.2022, indicating a pending resolution at the higher court level. 3. Mr. Dave, for the petitioners, referred to a prior order by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court, emphasizing that a declaration of a law provision as ultra vires does not diminish the validity of the judgment under challenge before the Supreme Court. 4. Another contention raised was the absence of a show cause notice during the relevant period for the recovery of any specific amount from the writ applicants, suggesting a potential procedural flaw in the actions taken against them. 5. Looking ahead, the Court scheduled the matter for further consideration post the Supreme Court's hearing on 13.04.2022. Additionally, the Court requested the respondent to ascertain if a provisional license could be issued with suitable terms to safeguard revenue interests, indicating a potential interim solution to address the petitioner's concerns.
|
