Court dismisses writ petition challenging job work permission withdrawal and export request rejection, allows appeal under Customs Act.

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the withdrawal of permission for job work and rejection of export request, allowing the petitioner to withdraw the petition and file an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 within three weeks. The Court emphasized the petitioner's bona fide pursuit of remedy and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its merits promptly. An interim order was issued to maintain the status quo of seized goods (marble slabs) during the appeal process to safeguard the petitioner's rights.

---

---

Issues:
1. Withdrawal of permission for job work and rejection of export request.
2. Appealability of the impugned order under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Request for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file an appeal.
4. Seizure of finished goods during the pendency of the petition and maintenance of status quo.

Analysis:
1. The petition challenged the order withdrawing permission for job work and rejecting the export request. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents did not oppose this request, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal within three weeks. The Court emphasized the petitioner's bona fide pursuit of remedy before the Court, ensuring the appeal, if filed within the stipulated time, would be decided on merits after providing an opportunity for a hearing.

2. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the appealability of the impugned order under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged the objection and requested permission to withdraw the petition to file an appeal. The Court noted the time-sensitive nature of the appeal due to potential limitation issues and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its merits if filed within three weeks, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to statutory provisions.

3. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the seizure of finished goods (marble slabs) by the respondents during the petition's pendency. In response, the Court issued an interim order on 5.3.2020 to maintain the status quo regarding the seized goods. The Court further extended this directive for an additional three weeks to address the ongoing situation and preserve the rights and interests of the petitioner pending the appeal process.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the withdrawal of the petition, the appealability of the impugned order, the maintenance of status quo regarding seized goods, and the importance of adhering to statutory remedies and timelines under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court's decision aimed to balance the interests of both parties while upholding procedural fairness and legal principles.

---