9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 on other hand. - Customs department directed to refund the amount. - Notice of Motion No. 225 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. 2976 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2014 - Mohit S. Shah, C.J. And M. S. Sanklecha,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. N. G. Thakkar, Sr. Advocate i/by Mrs. Manjula Rao and Mr. Nanish Pai For the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly along with S. D. Bhosale for Respondent No.3. Mr. Y. S. Bhate and M. S. Bharadwaj ORDER PC: The applicant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2976 of 2004. 2) By this notice of motion the applicant seeks implementation of the order dated 19 October 2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2976 of 2004. 3) By order dated 19 October 2010 another Division Bench of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re told that the appeals are listed for hearing on 8 July 2014. However, it is significant that the Customs Department which was a party respondent in Writ Petition No.2956 of 2004 and were directed to return US$ 289250 to the petitioner have not preferred any appeal from order dated 19 October 2010 to the Apex Court. Thus the order dated 19 October 2010 of this Court is binding upon the Customs department to the extent of refunding US$ 289250 to the petitioner. 5) Consequent to the order dated 19 October 2010 in Writ Petition No.2976 of 2004 the applicant approached the Customs Department seeking the refund of US$ 289250 along with no objection from the Reserve Bank of India to export the same. On 5 March 2012, the Commissioner of Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of prayer clause (a) by clarifying that the petitioner would not be entitled to pay interest on the said amount of US$ 2,89,250 Sd/Sd/ (R. M. SAVANT, J.) (V. C. DAGA,J.) Further order (Date 19 October, 2010) At this stage the learned Counsel for the Revenue prays that the amount of 2,89,250 US$ which is lying confiscated since the year 1993 and which continues to lie with the Department should not be released to the petitioner Jatin Jhaveri for a period of 8 weeks. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find the said request Tobe reasonable. The said amount, therefore, not Tobe returned to the Petitioner Jatin Jhaveri for a period of 8 weeks from date. Sd/Sd/ ( R.M.SAVANT, J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) In view of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment may from time to time to determine... . In spite of our calling upon the revenue to place on record any directions given by the Central Government about the manner in which the seized currency has to be disposed of by the revenue, nothing has been placed before us. 9) Be that as it may, the issue before us is very limited i.e. implementation of the order dated 19 October 2010 passed by this Court. The Customs Department themselves stated before this Court that the amount of US$ 289250 is lying with them while seeking a stay of the order dated 19 October 2010. The aforesaid observation has not been disputed by moving any application before the Court or by filing an appeal before the Supreme Court on merits of the refund of US$ 289250 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
