9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is required to be modified by directing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee to the extent of 30% of the duty amount in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD, New Delhi v. Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd [2011 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT] and also requiring to furnish a bank guarantee of ₹ 43.50 lakh. - Petition disposed of - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20606 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2016 - MS. HARSHA DEVANI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : MR HARDIK P MODH, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : KSHITIJ M AMIN, ADVOCATE, MR DEVANG VYAS, ADVOCATE, MR HRIDAY BUCH, ADVOCATE ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Mr. Hardik Modh, learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at at this stage the petitioner is not pressing the relief prayed for vide paragraph 11(a)(i) of the petition as the matter is pending consideration before the concerned authority. It was submitted that insofar as the sealing of the machines imported by the petitioner is concerned, the same does not benefit either of the parties inasmuch as, if the machines remain under seizure, they will be depleted. It was further submitted that assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner has not completed the export obligation, even then, the period for completion of export obligation is not yet over and hence, the seizure of the machines also prevents the petitioner from fulfilling the export obligation within the stipulated time limit. Referr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posit 25% of the value of the seized goods by way of a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the respondents. It was submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to restore the bank guarantee of ₹ 43.50 lakh which had been returned to the petitioner upon issuance of the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate and that the petitioner may at best be called upon to deposit an additional bank guarantee of ₹ 50 lakh. 4. Mr. Hriday Buch, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 3, vehemently opposed the petition by submitting that petitioner had obtained Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) by misrepresenting the facts before the concerned authority and therefore such EODC is liable to be revoked. It was subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order dated 02.12.2015 withdrawing the redemption issued to the petitioner. However, consequent to the said order, as on date, the petitioner s redemption stands withdrawn. Resultantly, the petitioner firm would be required to fulfill the export obligation in terms of the EPCG scheme authorization granted to it. Since the first part of the export obligation was to be completed within a period of four years, it appears that the petitioner still has time to fulfill the export obligation. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the machines imported under EPCG scheme remain under seizure, the condition thereof is likely to deteriorate, which would not benefit either the petitioner nor the revenue. On the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD, New Delhi v. Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 7. And the petitioner is further required to be directed to furnish a bank guarantee of ₹ 43,50,000/- (rupees forty two lacs) which had been returned to it on account of issuance of the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate. 8. In the light of the above discussion, the petition is disposed of in the following terms: (1) The order of provisional release of the seized goods dated 9.2.2016 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, NS-IV, JNCH, shall stand modified to the following extent: The seized goods shall be provisionally released subject to: (i) the petitioner furnishing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
