9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the minimum price as fixed by the said notification. It is opined that there is no reason as to why the petitioner ought not to be permitted to clear the goods - it is directed that the imports of the petitioner be not detained on the ground that this goods are prohibited goods under NN. 5/2023 and on such count be released on the petitioner furnishing a bond - An appropriate assessment of the bill of entry be accordingly undertaken in accordance with law within a period of 3 days from today - Petition disposed off. - G. S. KULKARNI JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Anand S. Patil. For the Respondents : Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Mr. Dhananjay B. Deshmukh. P.C.: 1. Not on board, taken on producti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter of the present petition is not being cleared by the respondent customs on the ground that the same is hit by the Notification No. 5/2023. It is contended that such notification is sought to be foisted by the department on the Petitioner when the same is neither attracted nor applicable. He submits that in regard to similar imports, the proceedings were considered by this Court initially in the case of M /s. Indusina Exmi LLP vs Union of India Anr. WP/22281/2023 dtd. 11.07.2023., and subsequently in the case of Jumbo Dates vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Import) WP/16014/2023 dtd. 21.12.2023, wherein in this Court, considering the orders passed by the Kerala High Court in the case of Indusina Exmi LLP vs. The Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Union of India Anr. Writ Petition No. 22281 of 2023 dated 11 July, 2023, who had also imported apples and had challenged the said notification. The Kerala High Court by an order dated 11 July, 2023 had stayed the said notification and, accordingly, permitted provisional release of apples as imported by M/s. Indusina Exim LLP (supra). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would thus submit that apart from the petitioner being not affected by the said notification, the petition would also stand covered by such order passed by the Kerala High Court in M/s. Indusina Exim LLP (supra) and hence, it would be an entitlement of the petitioner to seek provisional release of apples. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 14 December, 2023 passed by this Court. 8. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed this petition on the ground that the petitioner has waived a show cause notice and in fact an order is recently passed whereby the goods have been confiscated. It is stated to be dated 18 December, 2023. However, the petitioner has not been served with a copy of the order. It is stated that an email was forwarded to the petitioner enclosing such order as also by a speed post. However, such order is not placed before us. Such order, in our opinion, however, would not make any difference considering the view we are required to take on the proceedings. 9. Be so it, in our opinion, there is much substance in the contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering that the imports are perishable in nature, we are inclined to allow this petition in terms of the following order: O R D E R (i) We direct that the imports of the petitioner subject matter of Bill of Entry No. 8854586 dated 20 November, 2023, be released on the petitioner furnishing a bond. (ii) An appropriate assessment of the bill of entry be accordingly undertaken in accordance with law within a period of three days from today. 12. Disposed of in the above terms. No costs. 6. In the present case, the Bill of Entry seeks to clear the imports of apples which are imported by the petitioner at a price which is at Rs. 50/- per kg. Thus clearly the price per kil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
