2017 (3) TMI 342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., whereby the request made by the petitioner dated 19.12.2016 seeking permission to export the Shark Fins was declined. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner challenged Ext.P3 notification prohibiting export of Shark Fins, which was dismissed by Ext.P4 judgment by this Court. However, in Ext.P4 judgment, this Court made a specific provision that the respondents shall consider the request to fulfill any pending export obligations. In Ext.P9 judgment, this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to export, in order to fulfill any pending export obligations before Ext.P4 judgment, and if the petitioner is able to show that it has already procured the shark fins before the cut off ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....obligation as the stay was up to 09.03.2016. 5. As per Ext.P4 judgment, the ban on export of Shark Fins was upheld by this Court. However, the respondent was directed to re-consider the matter within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Thereupon, necessary enquiries were made and found that as per the firm's stock details as on 29.02.2016, duly authenticated by M/s. Federal Bank Ltd., from where the petitioner has availed a packing credit loan facility, there was a stock of 15,369 Kgs. of Shark Fins. Accordingly, petitioner was permitted to export the shark fins as per the aforesaid order. M/s. Marine Fins had to complete the export of 15,369 Kgs. of Shark Fins within three months from the date of issue of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... validity period of an irrevocable commercial letter of credit, established before the date of imposition of such restriction and it shall be restricted to the balance value and quantity available and time period of such irrevocable letter of credit. For operationalizing such irrevocable letter of credit, the applicant shall have to register the Letter of Credit with jurisdictional Regional Authority (RA) against computerized receipt, within 15 days of the imposition of any such restriction or regulation." 7. The fact is that export obligation needs to be understood as legally established export orders and not stock availability against future orders. Therefore, according to the respondent, petitioner is not entitled to get any time exte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s no much scope for sale of the shark fins within the country. It is also stated that, in India, shark is used for consumption also unlike foreign countries. Therefore, merely by prohibiting the export of shark fins alone, sharks cannot be protected. I am not going into the details with respect to the killing of sharks and the consequences thereto. The fact remains, 3,788 Kgs. of Dried Shark Fins, admittedly collected by the petitioner before 09.03.2016, are remaining with the petitioner. There is no local market for the Shark Fins, according to the petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that if the Shark Fins are not exported, and if there is no local market for the same, it transforms itself into huge waste, and the Government of Indi....
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
TaxTMI