9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 3. The writ petition, in W.P. No. 13647 of 2012, has been filed challenging the order of the respondent, dated 25-4-2011, confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 22,94,284/-, said to be payable by the importer, alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d cancellation of the bond furnished to the customs authority. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the export obligation period had been changed, from eight years to ten years, by an order passed by the Foreign Trade Development Officer concerned, on 4-2-2010. After such an extension had been granted, the petitioner had exported the goods, within the extended period, and had also obtain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent, on 25-4-2011. 7. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the petitioner had obtained a letter, dated 4-2-2010, from the Foreign Trade Development Officer, extending the export obligations period, from eight years to ten years. The said letter had also been sent to the respondent. The respondent had recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had also been issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, stating that the petitioner had discharged the export obligations. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the respondent, dated 25-4-2011, as the petitioner need not be compelled to challenge the said order by filing a formal appeal, before the Commissioner of Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
