9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed a detailed order in the related writ petition which was heard along-with the other two writ petitions filed by identically placed petitioners. Relevant portion of the order dated 22.12.2020 reads as under : "3. Petitioners before us are manufacturers and exporters of silk fabrics and carpets. Their export consignments have been held up by officials of respondent No.2. In this connection Mr. Shroff has referred to a letter dated 07.12.2020 issued from the office of respondent No.2 to the office of respondent No.3 to keep on hold the export consignments of the petitioners and not to allow further amendment in respect of the exportable cargo. 4. It is submitted that the goods sought to be exported are not prohibited goods. However a search was carried out in the business as well as residential premises of the petitioners on 07.12.2020 whereafter two amounts of currency being Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 32 lakhs were seized along with computers etc. Petitioners have submitted representation dated 11.12.2020 before respondent No.2 seeking unconditional release of the detained silk fabric and carpets covered under various shipping bills. 5. At this stage Mr. Shroff submits that respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii) Whatever decision is taken the same shall be communicated to the petitioners; (iii) Mr. Mishra shall file affidavit by the next date justifying withholding of export consignments without any order of seizure. 9. Stand over to 12.01.2021." 4. From the above it is evident that export consignments of the applicant comprising of silk fabric and carpets were put on hold. Cash amounts of Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 32 lakhs along with computers etc. were seized from the business as well as residential premises of the applicant on 07.12.2020. After referring to the circulars of the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 04.01.2011 and 05.08.2013 and taking note of the fact that there was no seizure of the export goods of the applicant this Court directed Commissioner of Customs i.e. respondent No.3 to take a decision expeditiously within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order vis-a-vis allowing the goods of the petitioners covered by the concerned shipping bills to be exported if necessary by giving personal hearing to the petitioners. 5. It appears that on the next date i.e. on 23.12.2020f a copy of the said order was served upon respondent No.3. However one Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n passed by another officer Superintendent of Customs; this is impermissible. That apart the condition regarding submission of bank guarantee is highly oppressive as it would completely paralyze all business activities of the applicant. 8.1 He submits that the applicant is exporting goods for last many years without any blemish. In such circumstances insistence on furnishing of bank guarantee that to equivalent to 20% of the declared value of the goods is highly unjust and unreasonable. Referring to judgments of the Gujarat High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court he submits the Courts had directed provisional release of the goods for export on furnishing of bond equal to the value of the seized goods without insisting on cash and bank guarantee. Therefore there is no justification for insisting on bank guarantee. 8.2 He also submits that applicant had made it clear to respondent No.3 that if the goods are allowed to be exported it would not claim any duty drawback on the exported goods till investigation is over. 8.3 Additionally he submits that though samples of the seized goods were taken by the respondents before seizure on 07.12.2020 but till date applicant has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ys period within which respondent No.3 was directed to take a decision as to allowing the goods to be exported. Instead of doing that the seizure was effected. This Court has held time and again that when the Court is in session of a matter the concerned administrative authority cannot initiate parallel proceedings on the same subject matter on its own ipse-dixit. Such an action would amount to interfering with the administration of justice and may even be held contumacious. However as mentioned above this aspect would be dealt with at a later stage. 13. Be that as it may it is quite apparent that because of the seizure applicant had to file an application for provisional release of the goods whereafter the order for provisional release dated 31.12.2020 has been passed. 14. We cannot agree with the submissions made by Mr. Jetly that the applicant should be relegated to the appellate forum for redressal of its grievance pertaining to the conditions imposed in the order of provisional release. This is for more than one reason. Firstly there was no seizure of the goods when we had passed our order dated 22.12.2020; seizure was made on 28.12.2020 that too when the matter was pending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
