9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (9) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner's furnishing a Bank Guarantee for 50% of the disputed amount of duties assessed in excess of the amount admitted by the petitioner, and a bond for the other 50%. Such Bank Guarantee and such bond shall be furnished by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs, the respondent No. 2 herein. Such Bank Guarantee and such bond shall be initially for a period of three months from date, on the undertaking of the petitioner to renew and keep it alive so long as the writ petition remains pending. The respondents are directed to produce receipt on 25.6.1987. The respondents will be at liberty to variation and/or vacation of the interim order upon notice to the petitioner. All parties to act on a signed copy of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eizure or not giving delivery does not arise. Further, before payment of duty no release order is ever given from the Bond in the case of even normal goods stored in the bonded warehouse. In the case of the goods stored in the bonded warehouse the importers pay duty on the assessed Bill of Entry and take release order from the Customs Appraiser concerned. In this case the Bill of Entry has been assessed long before and delivered to the importer on 9th July, 1987 in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 18th June, 1987 for payment of duty. The importer have not paid duty before presentation of instant writ application." 3. The respondents are denying that there was any order under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The endorsem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd from the Customs authorities the delivery of the goods. The contingency has not arisen even till today. On the 25th April, 1988 the petitioner filed the second writ petition in which the interim order dated the 25th April, 1988 was passed by Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. The petitioner has not complied with the requirements of that order either. Since there was no order under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the whole application of the petitioner is misconceived. The endorsement in the stock register does not amount to seizure of goods and at least it was by way of precautionary measure. As soon as the duty was assessed, the said order or endorsement became inoperative. In any event the said endorsement and/or order and/or direction lost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y or to rely on any order made by any of their officers prior to the Gate of the order passed by this Court so as to dispute the binding authority of the order dated 18.6.1988. In that view of the matter, I do not find that there is any substance in prayers (a), (c) and (g) of the Writ Petition. So far as the other prayers relating to the release of the goods without payment of the Warehousing charges is concerned, the same were not pressed and in my opinion, the same are without substance inasmuch as the goods were pledged in the Warehouse, at the request of the petitioner in or about September, 1985. The petitioner has not yet paid the Customs duty in respect of the said goods nor has he complied with the terms of the said order dated 18t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
