2017 (6) TMI 660

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nments of export goods are pending provisional release for export shipment, passage of each day will deteriorate the impugned goods and due to which appellants have to forfeit huge demurrage charges. Hence, with the consent of both sides, after allowing the early hearing application, appeal itself is taken up for disposal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the SIIB Unit of the Customs House, Chennai, took up investigation of ten Shipping Bills relating to ten different exporters and initiated investigation on alleged irregularities in the nature of the leather attempted to be exported, in particular, that the goods had not satisfied the norms laid down by the DGFT Public Notice No.21/2009 dated 01.12.2009. The export consignments of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, in line with the judgements referred to above, which includes the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navshakti Industries case, the condition imposed sub clause (i) of paragraph 6 of the impugned order can be relaxed by substituting the said condition, with an option being given to the petitioners to seek release of the subject goods/consignments by furnishing a Bank Guarantee of a nationalized bank equivalent to 30% of the export duty. 20.1 It is made clear, however, that, all other conditions contained in paragraphs 6,7 and 8 shall remain unaltered." 4. Further, pursuant to this High Court order, the Department vide communication No. S. Misc./185/2016-EDC dated 10.01.2017, directed all the nine exporters who had obtained the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioners, upon fulfillment of conditions already stipulated in the order dated 22.12.2016." 6. Pursuant to the second High Court order of 25.01.2017, provisional release of the goods was permitted to all the nine aforesaid exporters based on the directions of the High Court order. However, the appellants herein have not been extended the same facility. 7. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants, Ld. Counsel Ms. V. Pramila, Advocate, submits that the SIIB have initiated investigation into ten exporters, including the appellant herein. This being so, the terms of provisional release for identical export goods in respect of other exporters should also be extended to the appellants. 8. On the other hand, L....