2025 (6) TMI 1683

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Respondent Nos 4, 5 and 6: Ms Ruju Thakkar, with Ms Sangeeta Yadav,. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M S SONAK, J) 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Leave is granted to amend the Petition and challenge the seizure memo dated April 3, 2025, which was issued during the pendency of this Petition. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Reverification is dispensed. 4. This Petition challenges the seizure memo dated 7 March 2025 and 3 April 2025 and the consequent seizure of the Petitioner's goods under Bills of Entry detailed in Exhibit 'M' (page 213) of this Petition. 5. Ms Ruju Thakkar, the learned Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that even if the Respondents' version is accepted, the duty payable would be in the range of about Rs. 5.75/- Crores at the highest. He submitted that the Petitioner is required to pay an additional demurrage of about Rs. 50 Lakhs for no fault of the Petitioner company. He submitted that, taking into account all these factors, the Petitioner, without prejudice, is offering the bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 1 Crore and the bond to secure the balance. He submitted that the interest of justice would be served if the goods were directed to be provisionally released subject to these conditions of a bank guarantee and bond. 8. The learned Counsel for the Respondents opposed the above suggestion. Ms Thakkar submitted that the imported goo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of importing contraband. In any event, all these issues can be decided while disposing of the show cause notice. These are contentious issues, and pending a decision on these issues, there is no point in allowing the goods to perish. 12. The offer for the bank guarantee of Rs. 1/- Crore cannot be accepted. The interest of justice would be served if the Petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee of Rs. 2.5 Crores and a bond of Rs. 3.25 Crores as a condition for provisional release. This will secure the interest of the Respondents and, at the same time, will prevent the perishing of the goods. Considering the material placed on record by the Petitioner, it would not be proper to let the goods perish. As noted earlier, the Petitioner is armed wi....