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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Tribunal Orders Customs Probe on Appellant Compliance with Stay Order</h1> <h3>M/s HIND OFFSHORE PVT LTD Versus CC(I)</h3> M/s HIND OFFSHORE PVT LTD Versus CC(I) - TMI Issues: Customs Appeal Stay Order ComplianceCompliance with Stay Order:The appellant, represented by Ms. Lakshmi Menon, complied with the conditions of the Stay order issued by the Tribunal, which included maintaining a Bond and Bank Guarantee. Despite compliance, the Customs Authorities are allegedly not allowing the appellant to take the vessel out of India for urgent work. The appellant seeks suitable directions from the Customs authorities in this regard.Stay Order by Tribunal:The Tribunal had passed a Stay order dated 17.05.2013, staying all proceedings following the adjudication order. As per this order, the Customs authorities are not permitted to withhold the vessel or restrict its use by the appellant. However, the Tribunal notes the absence of any written order from the Customs Authorities regarding the restriction on taking the vessel out of India.Directions to Customs Authorities:In response to the appellant's plea, the Tribunal directs the Commissioner (AR) representing the Revenue to investigate the matter and provide necessary information to the Tribunal by a specified date. The Customs Authorities are instructed to issue a written order if they intend to prevent the appellant from moving the vessel out of India, emphasizing that oral instructions are not acceptable. The Tribunal schedules a compliance hearing for further action on the matter.Conclusion:The judgment concludes with an order for immediate action ('Order be given Dasti'), indicating the urgency and importance of resolving the issue promptly. The Tribunal's focus on ensuring compliance with the Stay order and the rights of the appellant in utilizing the vessel for urgent work is evident throughout the detailed analysis of the case.