AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2032
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eign Trade Policy, the Government decided to facilitate technological and infrastructural upgradation for the purpose of attaining internationally accepted standards of productivity. With the said object in view the Government decided to grant licences for the import of capital goods for use in manufacturing items for export and also to service sectors to develop infrastructure and quality of service with the object of earning more foreign exchange. To achieve the above objective it has been proposed to promote concessional rate of customs duty against bank guarantee or bond for import of certain articles. Under the scheme, the second respondent is the highest authority to issue licences and to regulate and control the import of capital goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) licence for making necessary endorsements regarding the registration of the car as a tourist car. The petitioner objected to the same explaining that the notification had no retrospective effect and that for the said reason it was not necessary for the petitioner's vehicles to be registered as tourist vehicles. Under protest, the petitioner produced his licence and an endorsement was made thereon to register the vehicle as a tourist taxi. In the meantime, the petitioner was served with a detention order Ext.P7 in respect of his vehicle and a restraint order Ext.P8. Since the said orders prevented the petitioner from using the vehicle for the purposes for which they were imported the petitioner a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said writ petition the petitioner sought for the issue of appropriate orders quashing Ext.P11. 5. In all the three writ petitions separate counter affidavits have been filed. I have heard Adv. D.S. Sreekumaran who appears for the petitioner in all the writ petitions as well as Adv. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil who appears for the respondents and Adv. Pauly Mathew Muricken who appears for the fifth respondent Bank in WPC 7065/2011. 6. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the vehicle in question was imported in the year 2003 and 2004 respectively. The notification Ext.P5 that is relied upon has no retrospective operation. The motor vehicles had been imported and were being used by the petitioner pursuant to installation permit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... responded to the same. Ext.P12 in WPC 14472/2007 is only a show cause notice. It was only because the petitioner had not responded to the said notice, Ext.P11 in WPC 7065/2011 was issued proposing to encash the bank guarantees furnished by him. The counsel also contends that the foreign exchange that was stipulated as a condition for import was to be earned by use of the imported vehicle alone. The petitioner has not been able to show that he had earned the stipulated amount of foreign exchange from the use of motor vehicle itself. It is alleged that he had clubbed the foreign exchange earned from other activities also to contend that he had complied with the stipulation contained in Exts.P2 and P2(a). For the above reason, according to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. It is for the second respondent to thereafter consider the contentions of the petitioner also and to take a decision in the matter. The petitioner would be entitled to challenge any such decision before the appropriate authority if the same is against him. Since no final decision has been taken yet, I am not satisfied that it is necessary to set aside the impugned orders in these writ petitions, WPC 29077/2006 and 14772/2007. 10. With respect to the impugned order in WPC 7065/2011 which is Ext.P11 by which, the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner are sought to be encashed, I do not find any justification. The bank guarantees can be encashed only after a proper determination of the issues that I have referred to in the earlier....