2017 (7) TMI 834

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and 1415135 respectively, both dated 03.10.2016, forthwith for export. 3. The petitioners seek appropriate directions, so that the goods can be exported and in that regard, reliance was placed on the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Commissionerate IV, Chennai dated 23.11.2016 passed in the case of Sri.Vijayalakshmi Leathers. This order was put to challenge by the said exporter by filing W.P.No.43062 of 2016, which was tagged along with other connected matters where the other exporters were attempting to export similar type of goods. 4. The petitioners therein were aggrieved by certain conditions imposed by the Commissioner of Customs while ordering for provisional release vide order dated 23.11.2016. The condition imposed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tioners and passed an order on 22.12.2016 by directing the provisional release of the subject goods by relaxing the rigor of the condition contained in Clause 6(i) of the order dated 23.11.2016. The relaxation, which was allowed by this Court, was by substituting Clause 6(i) with an option being given to those petitioners to seek for release of subject goods/ consignments by furnishing bank guarantee of a nationalized bank equivalent to 30% of export duty. This is so, as finished leather, as per the extent policy, is freely exportable, while, generally, unfinished leather i.e. hides, skins, leather - tanned and untanned, are subject to export duty at the rate of 60%. It was made clear that the other conditions contained in Clauses 6, 7 and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r reporting compliance and by order dated 30.1.2017, the writ petitions were closed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners' case is no different from the earlier cases, which were disposed of by this Court and the conditional order was complied with by the petitioners and that therefore, similar orders should be passed in the petitioners' cases also. 9. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department, while resisting the plea, would contend that as against the order passed by this Court on 25.1.2017 in W.P.Nos.1620 to 1628 of 2017, writ appeals have been preferred and as there was a delay in filing the appeals, the matters are in the process of being listed. Therefore, it is furthe....