2008 (1) TMI 541

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... licence for import of mulbery raw silk yarn of 1172 kg. The petitioner had imported the said quantity of goods from Chennai Sea Port and had cleared it through the customs house for a value of Rs. 11,19,744/-, involving customs duty of Rs. 3,52,421/-. In accordance with the import policy governing duty Exemption scheme and in accordance with the instructions of the customs authorities, the petitioner had furnished a bank guarantee, insofar as the customs duties was concerned to the extent of Rs. 88,105/-, through the bank as against the above import. The petitioner had a fixed export obligation of 960 kg. of the goods for a value of Rs. 14,89,260/-, to be fulfilled within a period of one year from the date of issue of the advance licence. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n this background that the petitioner had requested the respondent no. 1 for extension of time to fulfil the export obligations under the seventh advance licence. In the meanwhile, however the Chennai Customs Authorities enforced the bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 88,105/-, being 25% of the Customs duty leviable on the imported silk yarn and the same has been realised. It is the petitioner's contention that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity by respondent no. 1, before proceeding to impose the liability by its order dated 20-12-2001 levying penalty of Rs. 14 lakhs. Thereafter, the petitioner having made futile attempts to have the order recalled, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent under Section 15 of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h his bona fides and genuine cause, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the customs duty, after taking into account the amount of Rs. 88,105/- which has been realised by enforcing the bank guarantee, out of the local due in a sum of Rs. 3,52,421/-. 5. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent would vehemently oppose any such consideration and would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable at the threshold, since the admitted circumstances that the petitioner's appeal before the second respondent was rejected, on account of non-payment of pre-deposit which was a mandatory requirement, the present petition being filed with a prayer as contended and any such consideration of the prayer would enable the petitioner....