2010 (7) TMI 326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition are that the petitioner secured an order from U.A.E. for the export of 3000 numbers of school bags. Thereafter the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for issuance of an advance license for import of goods necessary for the manufacture of the export goods namely school bags. The 2nd Respondent issued a quantity based advance licence dated 25-10-1994. As per the licence, the petitioner was permitted to import Nylon cloth with export obligation to export the finished product. The period within which the export obligation had to be complied with was extended up to 24-10-1996 and the license was revalidated by the 2nd respondent up to 31-3-1997. The petitioner had filed the report to the 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elopment) Act, 1992. The petitioner also filed an application to dispense with the pre-deposit which is required to be made in terms of the 2nd proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act. At that stage, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuance of writ of mandamus for a direction to dispose of the appeal without insisting upon any bank guarantee. 6. When the matter is taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed an additional typed set of papers in which the interim order passed by the 1st respondent dated 8-5-2006 has been filed. As per the interim order, the petitioner was directed to pre deposit the penalty equivalent to 25% within 4 weeks failing which it was ordered that appeal will be rejected w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Customs, Grade-7 has made the necessary endorsement in the DEEC book on 25-10-1994 and copy of the same was produced along with the application for waiver to establish that they have fulfilled the export obligation. The plea raised by the petitioner in the waiver application though referred to by the 1st respondent in the interim order dated 8-5-2006 has not been considered. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent would submit that the 1st respondent had taken note of the same and considered the said documents and had imposed the condition of pre-deposit to the extent of only 25%. In my view, the approach of the 1st respondent to the matter is wholly untenable extended. The case of the petitioner itself is that no ....