9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The order gave the option to the petitioner to redeem the goods by paying fine of Rs. 90,000/-. The order also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. When the petition was admitted on 28-11-1989 the petitioner was allowed to clear the goods on furnishing bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 90,000/- and personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. We are told that necessary bank guarantee and bond has been given and has been kept alive and the goods have been redeemed. 2.The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are that the petitioner is a transferee of the REP licence, which was originally issued to one Rabbani Traders. The description of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, the endorsement on the licence before the Tribunal in that matter was only 'seeds' whereas in the case before the High Court, the endorsement made on the licence was vegetables/flowers and, therefore, the Court held that the Bombay Pharma Products case would not help. In our view, the judgment in Globe Enterprises cannot help the petitioner. 4.In any case, the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SVA Udyog Viniyog Ltd. v. Union of India [1993 (65) E.L.T. 20 (Bom.)] has been confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of SAV Udyog Viniyog Ltd. v. Union of India [2001 (133) E.L.T. 261 (S.C.)]. Somewhat similar entries were under consideration in the matter. Almonds had been imported under the Replenishmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as it is, since it was submitted by the petitioner that without resorting to that remedy, the petition be heard and decided. 7.In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the petition and there is no error in the impugned order. 8.Since the petition is not being entertained, it would be open for the respondents to encash the bank guarantee and also insist on payment of the amount of personal bond given by the petitioner. 9.Ms. Balani submitted that the amount of penalty and fine be reduced. She referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.B. Impex v. Union of India [2005 (187) E.L.T. 289 (Bom.)]. In that matter, the amount had been reduced. That was however a case where the amount of fine had already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
