TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Advocate for Customs ORDER 1. Notice in W.P. (C) 8204 of 2017 and CM No. 33730 of 2017 and in W.P.(C) 8205 of 2017 and C.M. No. 33731 of 2017. Ms. Suparna Srivastava, the learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Sanjeev Narula, the learned CGSC, accepts notice on behalf of Customs. 2. Initially, the other two writ petitions viz., W.P.(C) 7838/2017 and W.P.(C) 7839/2017 were filed by the two Petitioners praying that the consignments of gold coins imported by them from Seoul, South Korea should be permitted to be cleared without imposing restrictions in terms of Notification Nos. 24/2015-20 and 25/2015-20, both dated 25th August, 2017. 3. The background to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppraiser. Check & Verify Net Weight/Qty as declared and purity as declared. Report if Claimed Cth &/Or Notfn Benefit are not correct and/or declared value is not fair/adequate. Pl. examine in terms of target intervention instructions if any and Ccr. Vfy Coo Cft. By 10024698 On 25/08/2017 at 06:01 p.m." 6. Both Petitioners assert that, as on the date and time of the examination of the B/Es on the evening of 25th August 2017, even the Customs officials were not aware of the aforementioned two impugned notifications placing the import of gold coins in the 'restricted' category. In fact, a separate ground is urged by the Petitioners that this placing of the import of gold coins from Seoul, South Korea in restricted category is in the teet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 26th August 2017 which does not reflect the said two notifications. 10. It may be noted here that 26th and 27th August 2017 fell on a Saturday and Sunday respectively. The aforementioned date and time of the digital signature appearing on the body of the electronically published Gazette Notifications prima facie show that notifications were uploaded on the net on Monday 28th August 2017. In terms of Section 8 of the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act) read with the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 30th September, 2015 issued by the PSP Division of the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, it was decided that with effect from 1st October 2015, Gazette Notifications of the Government of India would be published exclusively ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of Customs on the basis of an OM dated 6th September, 2017 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade ('DGFT') by which the Petitioners were asked to show cause as to why the goods imported under the B/Es in question should not be confiscated under Section 111 (d) of the Act since they were imported contrary to the restrictions placed on such import by the aforementioned two notifications and further why penalty should not be imposed under Section 112 of the Act. 14. The said OM of the DGFT and the SCNs issued to each of the Petitioners have been challenged by them in the other two writ petitions mentioned hereinbefore. 15. No counter affidavit has been filed as yet in the two earlier writ petitions in which notices were is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a prima facie case for grant of interim relief as prayed, for the provisional release of the consignments covered by the B/Es presented by the Petitioners to the Customs Authorities in the manner indicated hereafter. The balance of convenience in granting such interim relief also appears to be in favour of the Petitioners at this stage. Considering the value of the imported consignments of the gold coins and the fact that they have been lying with the Respondents since 25th August, 2017, both the Petitioners would be subjected to severe hardship if such interim relief is not granted. 19. Accordingly it is directed that orders of provisional release of the consignments of gold coins imported by the Petitioners under the B/Es in question ....