9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 lakhs and sought clearance of the seized stock for the purpose of export; the respondents passed an order on 1-8-2005 releasing the seized stock for export; however, immediately thereafter, by an order dated 3-8-2005, the respondents revoked the order of 1-8-2005 aggrieved by such order, the applicants filed Writ Petition No. 2087 of 2005 before the Bombay High Court, which was subsequently renumbered as W.P. No. 7998 of 2005 and heard by the Aurangabad Bench of the Court on 12-12-2005 when the Court held that there was no jurisdiction for revoking the release order and hence granted interim stay of operation and execution of the order dated 3-8-2005 and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to export the goods. i.e. 3,35,636 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeds clarification. By the interim order dated 21st December, 2005 this Court stayed effect, operation and execution of the order dated 3rd August 2005 of the respondents prohibiting the petitioner from exporting the optical fiber and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to export 3,35,636 kms. of optical fiber in terms of clause 2 of the operative order of the Tribunal. Order of this Court is explicit and permits the petitioner to export goods in consonance with the order of the Tribunal dated 17th June 2005. This order of the Tribunal waived duty if the "goods were exported out of India" on payment of fine of Rupees 50 lakhs. By this Application, in essence-the petitioner is seeking interpretation of the order of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no ambiguity in the order of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to seek clarification of the order of this Court dated 21st December, 2005. In the light of this, the Civil Application is misconveived and is dismissed with no order as to costs." 6. Although learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argues that the High Court has not shut the door on the applicants from seeking clarification/modification of the Tribunal's order from the Tribunal, we do not find any merit in this contention. The High Court, vide order dated 21-5-2005, had directed the respondents to permit the applicants to export the goods in terms of the clear direction contained in para 93(2) of the Tribunal's final order dated 17-6-2005 wherein it has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
