9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port order has been cancelled, the petitioner wants to take back the cargo to their premises, but the 3rd respondent insisting the petitioner for bank guarantee for 25% of the value as security for provisional release of the goods. In the considered opinion of this Court, the question of providing bank guarantee does not arise, when the petitioner take back the goods, due to cancellation of the export order. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to take back the cargo to their premises, comprising of Readymade Garments presented for the export, without insisting Bank Guarantee, forthwith - Petition disposed off. - W.P(MD)Nos.10363 & 12925 of 2021 And WMP(MD)Nos.8036 & 10005 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2021 - THE H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officers without considering the Export Invoices, as well as Purchase Invoices detained the goods meant for export vide the Six Shipping Bills. That since the goods were not permitted clearance, nor any reason for delay was ever intimated, the petitioner vide its email/letter dated 01.05.2021, 05.05.2021 10.05.2021 requested the Respondents to allow export of the goods, since the goods are incurring heavy demurrage and detention charges. The Petitioner telephonically requested for early clearance of the goods. However the respondent No.3, without considering the request for early clearance of the goods for export ordered for seizure of the same vide seizure memo dated 11.05.2021 on the ground that the goods were sub standard, overvalued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he materials available on record. 5. Admittedly, now the petitioner is not in a position to export the goods due to cancellation of the export order. The goods are berthed in Tuticorin Port and kept idle and because of that, the demurrage and container charges has been mounting heavily. Since the export order has been cancelled, the petitioner wants to take back the cargo to their premises, but the 3rd respondent insisting the petitioner for bank guarantee for 25% of the value as security for provisional release of the goods. In the considered opinion of this Court, the question of providing bank guarantee does not arise, when the petitioner take back the goods, due to cancellation of the export order. 6. In view of the above stated p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
