TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017, by which, the Writ Court directed provisional release of the goods subject to the petitioner complying with the conditions imposed by this Court in W.P.Nos.43062 to 43070 of 2016 and W.P.Nos.1620 to 1628 of 2017 respectively dated 22.12.2016 and 25.01.2017. Writ Court further ordered that the above direction shall be complied with within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. In a similar issue, when the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai IV Commissionerate, Customs House, Chennai and others filed W.A.Nos.1019 & 1020 of 2017, against the order made in W.P.Nos.7429 & 7430 of 2017,dated 18.07.2017, after considering the rival submissions, this Court, vide common order in the abovesaid appeals ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity, value and description and are seized for being liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962, the same may be ordered to be released provisionally on execution of a Bond of an amount equivalent to the value of goods along with furnishing an appropriate security in order to cover the redemption, fine and penalty. (b) In case the export goods are either suspected to be prohibited or found to be prohibited in terms of the Customs Act, 1962 or ITC (HS), the same should be seized and appropriate action for confiscation and penalty initiated. (c) In case the export goods are suspected of mis-declaration or where declaration is to be confirmed and further enquiry/confirmatory test or expert opinion is required (as in case of chemic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may be ordered to be released provisionally, on execution of a Bond of an amount equivalent to the value of goods along with furnishing an appropriate security in order to cover the redemption fine and penalty. 37. Condition No.6(ii) stated supra makes it clear that on execution of bond for the value of the goods, an appropriate security for fine and penalty leviable, goods can be provisionally released. Reading of both clause No.4(a) of the Board's circular dated 04.01.2011 and condition No.6(ii) imposed in the initial provisional release order dated 23.11.2016, makes it clear that what is reiterated by the department, in the subsequent communication dated 10.01.2017, is only the expansion of the expression, "an amount equivalent t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he exporters to submit bank guarantee, towards redemption, fine and penalty, cannot be said to be erroneous or contrary to the orders of this Court, in W.P.Nos.43062 to 43070 of 2016 dated 22.12.2016. 40. In the light of the expression, an amount equivalent to the value of goods stipulated in Condition No.6(ii), with due respect, we are unable to subscribe to the views of the learned Single Judge that monetary value mentioned in the subsequent communication dated 10.01.2017 is in a sense diluted the very essence of the order dated 22.12.2016. Even taking it for granted, that in the earlier round of writ petitions, respondents therein have not articulated that the exporters have to offer security towards fine and penalty, in the form of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s hereunder: "... while considering the effect of an interim staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of the operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order, which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result." 45. On the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the writ Court has not quashed the order impugned. It has only stayed the order. Needless to state that quashing of an order impugned, results in the position, as if there was no such order, on the date of passing the order. Stay of the order, does not lead to....