9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of wrong mention of the name of U.P. Export Corporation, Kanpur, in the auction notice, the auction notice cannot become invalid when undoubtedly there was/is outstanding dues against the firm - The impugned auction notice has been issued for the realisation of outstanding dues of Rs. 17 lakhs -Being a partner the petitioner is jointly and severaly liable for the dues of the firm and, therefore, the petitioner is liable for the dues of the firm unless the demand against the firm stand set aside by any competent court. In the circumstances, we decline to quash the auction notice - It would be open to the authority concerned to proceed for realisation of the demand in accordance with the law. - 1753 (Tax) of 2004 - - - Dated:- 26-10-2010 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order or direction as the Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the matter. (vi) award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a partner of a partnership firm named as M/s. Salma Arts . In the said partnership firm the petitioner was the partner along with his brother Mohd. Saleem Khan. 3. The partnership firm was carrying on the business of export of hand embroidered fabrics. The partnership firm was issued an advance import licence No. P/K/3045102 dated 12-9-1984 for a sum of Rs. 3,59,000/- for the import of 18,180 mtr. of 100% pure Silk Georgette of 44 inch subject to the conditions attached to the said licence. 4. Under the cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 990. It is contended that for the claim of export incentive, the original shipping bills for the export were submitted in the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Kanpur. 7. The Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, Kanpur, vide order dated 28-7-1993 declared the firm M/s. Salma Arts as defaulter for the alleged non-fulfilment of the export obligations and required the firm to pay the customs duty in respect of the material imported against advance licence dated 12-9-1984 with 18% interest thereon within a period of 15 days from the date of issuance of the said order. In the said order it was provided that in case if the firm is not satisfied, they may prefer appeal as provided in para 238 of Handbooks of Import-Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t released the DEEC Books Nos. 007790 and 007791 after making endorsement for the submission of the same before the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Kanpur, and, therefore, the same could not be submitted. He requested that necessary direction be issued to respondent No. 3 for the release of original shipping bills and to the Assistant Collector of Customs (Air Cargo), New Delhi, respondent No. 4, to release the DEEC Books. Against the order of the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, Kanpur, dated 28-7-1993 the petitioner has filed appeal on 30-8-1993 before the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Kanpur, but till date no information about the appeal has been received, inasmuch as the appeal has not yet been decided. He s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been adduced to establish the filing of the appeal. He further submitted that since 1993 after getting interim order in the present writ petition, the petitioner has slept over in the matter. No effort has been made for disposal of the appeal. It is not the case of the petitioner that any stay application was moved along with the memorandum of appeal. He submitted that at this stage in the present proceeding the petitioner cannot claim any relief of mandamus from respondent No. 3 or Assistant Collector of Customs (Air Cargo), Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, for the release of original shipping bills and DEEC Books respectively, inasmuch as the petitioner failed to pursue his remedy by way of appeal. 13. We have heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is specifically mentioned in the notice. Against the partnership firm, M/s. Salma Arts, by the order dated 20-5-2000, which is Annexure 12 to the writ petition, a sum of Rs. 17 lakhs has been levied towards penalty under Section 4-I(i)(a) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The penalty has been levied on the ground that M/s. Salma Arts has not adduced any evidence to establish that the goods have been exported in compliance of the terms of the import licence. It is not the case of the petitioner that any appeal against the said order has been filed under the said Act. The said penalty order has also not been challenged in the writ petition. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the said penalty order has been set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
