Warehousing permission requires deposit at the designated bonded warehouse; unauthorised diversion triggers confiscation, redemption fine and importer...
HC set aside the impugned appellate rejection and allowed the petition by way of remand. The appellate order had dismissed the Appeal for non-compliance with the mandatory 10% pre-deposit requirement based on an alleged shortfall (required ~Rs.12,76,000; deposited Rs.8.62 lakhs) without prior notice or an opportunity to remedy the deficit, thereby infringing principles of natural justice. Although the Petitioner received a hearing on the merits, the authority failed to notify the Petitioner of the procedural shortfall or afford a reasonable chance to make good the deposit. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration after giving the Petitioner notice and an opportunity to cure any shortfall.
HC set aside the impugned appellate rejection and allowed the petition by way of remand. The appellate order had dismissed the Appeal for non-compliance with the mandatory 10% pre-deposit requirement based on an alleged shortfall (required ~Rs.12,76,000; deposited Rs.8.62 lakhs) without prior notice or an opportunity to remedy the deficit, thereby infringing principles of natural justice. Although the Petitioner received a hearing on the merits, the authority failed to notify the Petitioner of the procedural shortfall or afford a reasonable chance to make good the deposit. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration after giving the Petitioner notice and an opportunity to cure any shortfall.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.