Court stays bank guarantee invocation, directs consolidation with writ petition, emphasizes notice to petitioner.

The court stayed the bank guarantee invocation pending a decision by the DGFT and directed that the pending representation be consolidated with the previous writ petition for a decision by January 31, 2023. The court emphasized that the bank guarantee should not be invoked without two weeks' notice to the petitioner and provided a timeline for further actions in case of representation rejection, safeguarding the petitioner's rights during the process.

---

---

Issues:
1. Invocation of bank guarantee due to non-redemption of Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) authorizations.
2. Compliance with court orders regarding bank guarantee invocation.
3. Pending representation with the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) for extension of EPCG authorizations.

Issue 1: Invocation of bank guarantee due to non-redemption of EPCG authorizations:
The petitioner, a hospitality company operating a hotel, approached the court due to the invocation of a bank guarantee by the Department Commissioner of Customs for non-redemption of EPCG authorizations. The court had previously directed the petitioner to approach the DGFT for a representation regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on fulfilling export obligations. The court stayed the bank guarantee invocation pending a decision by the DGFT. The petitioner later redeemed additional EPCGs, reducing the remaining authorizations to 17. The petitioner's grievance in the current writ petition was that the bank guarantee was invoked without considering their representation and without the required two weeks' notice as per the court's order.

Issue 2: Compliance with court orders regarding bank guarantee invocation:
The court clarified that the Customs Authorities had kept the enforcement of the bank guarantee invocation in abeyance upon being notified of the court's orders. The court directed that the pending representation, along with the previous writ petition, be considered as one by the DGFT, and a decision should be made by January 31, 2023. The court further directed that the bank guarantee should not be invoked without two weeks' advance notice to the petitioner. If the petitioner redeems further EPCGs during this period, it should be brought to the notice of the DGFT. In case the representation is rejected, the petitioner would have four weeks to avail of remedies, during which the bank guarantees should not be invoked.

Issue 3: Pending representation with the DGFT for extension of EPCG authorizations:
The court consolidated the pending representation with the DGFT and directed a decision by January 31, 2023. The court emphasized that the bank guarantees should not be invoked without prior notice to the petitioner. If the petitioner redeems additional EPCGs during this period, it must inform the DGFT. In case the representation is rejected, the petitioner would have four weeks to pursue legal remedies without the bank guarantees being invoked.

In conclusion, the court addressed the issues of bank guarantee invocation, compliance with court orders, and the pending representation with the DGFT, providing detailed directions to safeguard the petitioner's interests and ensure a fair decision-making process.

---