2016 (9) TMI 223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Murugappan For the Respondent : Mr. V. Sundareswaran, Mr.T.M.Hariharan ORDER Heard Mr.S.Murugappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel and Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Wri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Notice in the Press on 29.11.2000. In the interregnum, it appears that notices were sent by the second respondent on various dates with regard to the proposed action under section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The notice states that the petitioner failed to produce the required documents for finalisation of the project import and was called upon to show cause as to why the amount of Rs. 1,10,00,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the petitioner for a minimum sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- and the goods having not been cleared within the statutory period, the Customs Authorities have brought the goods for sale and the sale was completed and taken delivery by the bidder on 25.10.2000 and 30.10.2000. This is evident from the communication given by the Warehouse Manager to the second respondent dated 07.01.2005. The said communicati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd cancelled on 28.01.1993. Thus, the respondent Department cannot make a claim against the third respondent Bank and this observation would protect the interest of the third respondent Bank. 6. For the reasons assigned in the preceding paragraphs, this Court is inclined to issue appropriate directions to the second respondent to take note of the subsequent events, the fact that the goods in qu....