TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (1) TMI 899
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... boxes of RMD Gutkha at the Nhava Sheva Port and allow the goods to be shipped to the consignee. The petitioners have also prayed for direction to restrain the respondents from detaining any gutkha products of the petitioners which reach the Nhava Sheva Port for export purposes. The petitioners have also prayed for appropriate directions against the Customs Authorities to restrain them from demanding any NOC with respect to the export of the petitioners' goods being RMD gutkha from the Nhava Sheva port. The petitioners have also prayed for declaration that the provisions of the Notification dated 19 July, 2012 do not prohibit the export of gutkha and pan masala. 2. Though the petitioners have prayed for various general reliefs, when....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the border to the port, there is a distinct possibility of the goods being diverted for the purpose of distribution or sale within the State of Maharashtra for local consumption and it will be impossible for the authorities to check this activity. It is submitted that since the goods were manufactured in the State of Gujarat, where, according to the petitioners, there is no ban on manufacture of gutkha and pan masala by an export oriented unit for the purpose of export, the petitioners could have very well exported the goods from any port in Gujarat itself. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, without going into the merits of the legal contentions raised in the petition, this Court suggested to the parties that even i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve statements, without going into the merits of the legal contentions raised in this petition, we direct Respondent No. 2 Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Export Department, Nhava Sheva to permit the petitioners to export 1250 boxes of RMD gutkha lying in the customs warehouse which are covered by the invoices mentioned above without relying upon the objection which was raised by the Assistant Commissioner of Port as per letter dated 23 August, 2011 (Page 84 of the petition). 9. It is clarified that this order does not exonerate the petitioners from complying with any other legal requirements for the purpose of export of the goods in question. 10. It is further clarified that though this Court does not express any opinion on ....