TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 396
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. The facts leading to filing of this Writ Appeal are as follows: 2.1 The Appellant Company, during the course of its business, imported textile machineries along with auxiliary equipments and spares consisting of 200 containers during the year 1996 from Germany. At that point of time, the Company was in great financial crunch and the machinery imported was also not immediately required for production. Hence, taking into consideration of both the factors, the Appellant Company decided to bond the imported goods as per the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, in Customs Bonded Warehouse without payment of duty pending clearance. 2.2 As the Appellant Company was put to several crisis, they were constrained to approach the Board for In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und that they would re-export the goods lying in the remaining containers, once they get clearance from the proceedings pending before the BIFR. 2.5 Thereafter, BIFR proceedings came to an end and the appellant Company was declared as a Sick Industrial Undertaking. The Appellant Company has continuously taken efforts to find suitable buyer for exporting their goods, which have become obsolete. In the mean while, they came to know that the respondents were taking steps to auction the goods and hence, they filed a writ petition in WP.No.736 of 2012, which was disposed of by order dated 11.01.2012 by permitting the appellant to submit a representation and thereafter, the same was directed to be disposed of by the third respondent therein. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the writ petition filed by the Appellant. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that more than fifteen years have lapsed from the date of issuance of bonding/warehousing permission, no tangible and legally acceptable action has been taken by the Appellant with reference to the goods in question. Learned counsel further submits that the Appellant has failed to discharge their duty due on the warehoused goods and has been delaying payment of Customs duty and other charges for the past 16 years. Learned counsel also submits that since the goods were sold in e-auction held on 23.12.2011, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the Appellant's request, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings were cancelled. In this regard, the highest bidders have initiated other proceedings, which culminated in dismissal. Be that as it may, questioning the rejection of the Appellant's request to re-export the goods in question, W.P.No.15103 of 2014 came to be filed, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 04.03.2015. 7. On a perusal of the order impugned herein, we find that the learned Single Judge has rejected the appellant's request on the following grounds: (i)the Appellant has belatedly approached the respondents seeking permission to re-export the goods in question; and (ii)placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shakti LPG Ltd, (2008) 4 SCC 496, it has been held ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... At this juncture, it is noteworthy to refer the Circular No.03/2003-Cus. dated 14.01.2003 issued by the Government of India and the contents of the same, for better appreciation, are reproduced hereunder: "2.The matter has been examined in the Board. It has been decided that in case an importer makes a request to permit re-export of the goods under Section 69 of the Customs Act, 1962, such a request may be allowed even if the permitted period for bonding has expired and demand notice has been issued or it has been decided to put the goods under auction. Before permitting re-export in each such case, however, it will be necessary to extend the period of warehousing under Section 61 of the Customs Act to enable the importer to expo....