9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion/notice dated 15 October 2024 since it was admitted that this issue was independent. - M.S. SONAK JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwini Kumar a/w Shubham T. Waphare and Mr. Abhishek B. Godse. For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: Ms. Neeta Masurkar a/w Mr. Abhishek Mishra. PC.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner seeks the following substantive relief by instituting this petition in terms of prayer clause (a):- (a) That this Hon ble Court be pleased to call for the records of proceedings and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the letter F. No.CUS/APR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to the importer to redeem the said goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- Rules (One Lakh Fifth Thousand Only) under Section 125 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose of re-export only within 90 days of this order as per Rule 15 (2) of the Hazardous and other Water (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) on the Importer M/s. Penewere LLP under section 112 (a) of the Custom Act, 1962, for the reasons deliberated in Para 32. (v) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) on Shri Nilesh Ulhas Sinalkar, Partner at M/s. Renewera LLP under Section 112 (a) of the Custom Act 1962, for the reasons deliberated in Para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part, the Petitioner was not permitted to exercise the option of re-export. The timeline now set out by us will govern the payment of amounts/fines and re-export of the goods. 8. Insofar as the communication dated 15 October 2024 (Exhibit-J on page 110) is concerned, the issue raised therein must not be linked to implementing the O-I-O dated 2 August 2024. Ms Masurkar agreed that it was an independent issue. Still, she requested this court clarify that the respondents could pursue the independent issue raised in the communication without being bogged down with this order. We clarify accordingly. 9. However, all contentions of the Petitioner and the Respondents regarding the proposed penal action under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
