TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows encashment of bank guarantee after adverse customs order. Petitioner directed to appeal for stay.</h1> <h3>M/s. Hyundai Heavy Ind. Co. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others</h3> The High Court of BOMBAY ruled in favor of respondent Nos.1 and 2, allowing them to encash the bank guarantee provided by respondent No.3 after an adverse ... - Issues:Customs order against petitioner, bank guarantee validity, appeal process, encashment of bank guarantee, communication to respondent No.3.Analysis:The High Court of BOMBAY delivered a judgment regarding a petition where the Commissioner of Customs had passed an adverse order against the petitioner on November 9, 2005. The petitioner had provided a bank guarantee from respondent No.3 to secure the interests of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the proceedings. As the order was unfavorable to the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to encash the bank guarantee. The bank guarantee was valid until December 22, 2005. The petitioner was advised to file an appeal against the order before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal by the end of the month and apply for a stay order by December 15, 2005. If the necessary order was not obtained by then, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were permitted to encash the bank guarantee. It was explicitly stated that the bank guarantee should not be encashed in the interim, and both parties were directed to inform respondent No.3 about this decision. The petition was disposed of in accordance with this order, with no costs imposed. An authenticated copy of the order was to be provided to the parties for reference.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
