9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for the Petitioner, till a decision is taken in respect of the representations of the Petitioner, status-quo should be maintained in respect of the said gold. Further, in the event of the Petitioner succeeding in proving its case, the Respondents will have to be directed to restore to the Petitioner the said gold or equivalent amount of gold or to compensate the Petitioner by making payment of an amount equivalent to the market value of the said gold as on date. Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the representations made by the Petitioner by letters dated 21st June, 2019 and 11th April, 2023 and take a decision in respect of the same within a period of six months from the date of intimation of this Order, after giving a per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). 3. The Petitioner is a jeweller who conducts business in multiple cities in India. It is the case of the Petitioner that it is the owner of 490.95 grams of gold ( the said gold ). 4. It is further the case of the Petitioner that it had approached Respondent No. 5, which is an entity engaged in the Logistics Business, for the purpose of sending the said gold to one M/s. Prabhat Subhash Ghosh on job work basis. It is the case of the Petitioner that it had entrusted the said gold on 13th June, 2019, with Docket No. 22190, to Respondent No. 5, along with necessary documents, to take the said gold from Chennai to Mumbai. 5. Further, the Petitioner states that it is the case of the Respondents that they had received information tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that they were smuggled goods. The said 32.380 kgs of gold included the said gold of the Petitioner. The said Show Cause Notice was not issued to the Petitioner. Further, the said Show Cause Notice did not consider the e-mail issued by the Petitioner informing Respondent Nos. 1 2 that it was the owner of the said gold. 8. The Petitioner addressed a letter dated 21st June, 2019 to Respondent No. 1 wherein the Petitioner stated that it had sent the said gold for making of ornaments to Prabhat Subhash Ghosh, on job work basis, through Respondent No. 5. The Petitioner informed that the said gold was owned by the Petitioner and not by Respondent No. 5, who was merely acting as an agent of the Petitioner for delivering the said gold. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hip was not considered by the said Order dated 13th January 2023. It was requested that, on account of the same, the said Order dated 13th January 2023 ought to be amended so that the Petitioner could claim its gold. The said request was rejected by Respondent No. 3 by its letter dated 18th April 2023. 12. From the aforesaid factual narration, it is clear that representations made by the Petitioner, claiming ownership of the said gold and seeking release of the same, have not been considered by the Respondents. 13. Mr. Dhaval, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states that the Petitioner is only seeking that the said representations made by the Petitioner may be considered and decided by the Respondents. 14. In our view, the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
