TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1792
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. P.S. Raman, the Senior Counsel for M/s. Preethi Mohan, the Learned Counsel for the third respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the public notice issued by the second respondent, dated 10-1-2018, as being ultra vires under the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Licensing notes and also contrary to the orders passed by this Court, in W.P. No. 29806 of 2015, dated 5-2-2016 [2016 (338) E.L.T. 571 (Mad.)], W.P. No. 5019 of 2015, dated 5-4-2015 (sic), and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Director General of Foreign Trade v. M/s. Kanak Exports, reported in 2015 (326) E.L.T. 26 (S.C.). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka during December, 2017. 4. Therefore, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that similar interim order may be granted in this writ petition as well as the impugned public notice dated 10-1-2018 seeks to do the same thing, which was done by the second respondent in the public notice dated 5-12-2016. 5. Mr. Rabu Manohar, Learned Senior Standing Counsel accepting notice for the respondents would submit that the said writ petitions before the Karnataka High Court have been finally heard, that orders are awaited and that in due respect of the interim order granted by the Karnataka High Court, the public notice dated 5-12-2016 was not given effect to and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High Court granted an interim order in the said writ petitions challenging the earlier notification issued in the year 2016 and that the interim order passed by the Karnataka High Court binds the second respondent. 9. In my considered view, the interim order granted by the Karnataka High Court may bind the second respondent, but not this Court. At best, it can be relied upon for persuasive purposes before this Court. However, this Court finds that the interim order granted by the Karnataka High Court only directed deferral of drawal of lots and that it has not granted stay of the public notice dated 5-12-2016 nor prohibited the second respondent from exercising his jurisdiction eternally. Therefore, this Court would be well justified ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her directions need be issued. This Court is convinced to issue such a direction considering the fact that on account of deferral of drawal of lots by the Karnataka High Court, it appears that for nearly a year, imports have not been permitted. In fact, to my mind, the interim order granted by the Karnataka High Court can, at best, may be applicable to the public notice dated 5-12-2016 and it cannot be understood as a blanket ban on imports. Be that as it may, considering the commercial considerations involved and the exigencies of trade, it would be in the fitness of things for all importers to file their applications before the second respondent and this Court can consider as to how best the interest of the importers could be protected. ....