9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the conditions imposed upon it on 05 August 2024 and 06 August 2024 in respect of two bills of entries under which the petitioner was required to furnish a bond for the full value of goods and bank guarantee to the tune of 100 per cent of the differential duty in terms of rule 6 (4) (C) of CAROTAR Rules 2020. 4. It is the petitioner's case that in the course of the business, they entered into an agreement to import "Unwrought Platinum" HS CODE 71101110 with one Aypee Capital FZCO (the supplier) from Dubai, UAE. The supplier issued two tax invoices for the supply of Unwrought Platinum in the specified quantities for a total amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned conditions, the petitioner has instituted the present petition. 8. Dr Kantawala, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the imposition of the impugned condition has no statutory backing. He submitted that the decision of the Delhi High Court in Ausil Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (supra) holds that such a condition cannot be imposed. Dr Kantawala submitted that the impugned conditions visited the petitioner with serious civil consequences, and there was not even minimum compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play before imposing such conditions. He pointed out that such conditions were not communicated to the petitioner but uploaded on the respondent's system (ICEGATE), which only the custom brokers can a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there has been a failure of natural justice in this matter. 12. If the respondent had issued any notice to the petitioner or even emailed the petitioner about the proposal regarding a full bond and bank guarantee, the petitioner would have had an opportunity to respond. Dr Kantawala submitted that the Delhi High Court supports the petitioner's case that no such condition can be imposed. After that, the 2nd respondent could have considered the matter and decided according to the law. However, since all this was not done, we set aside the impugned conditions dated 05 August 2024 and 06 August 2024 regarding the two bills of entry. 13. Now that the petitioner knows the case it requires to meet, there is no necessity to issue a fresh notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
