2025 (7) TMI 581

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... W.P. No.14057 of 2025 has been filed challenging the impugned communication dated 10.10.2024 sent by the second respondent. 2. Under the impugned communications, the petitioner's request for renewal of their self sealing licence for a further period of five years has been rejected on the ground that the Facility Circular No.15 of 2023 dated 21.07.2023 issued by the Chennai Customs has been contravened by the petitioner. According to the respondents, as seen from the impugned communications, they have found two cases registered against the petitioner under the Customs Act in which one case pertains to the claim of wrongfully benefiting from S.No.39 of Notification No.24/2005-Cus- Payment of short levied duty and differential duty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reement on import of "Poly Solar Cell" from Malaysia is on account of the alleged production of the fabricated document, which the petitioner claims that they cannot be held liable. The petitioner categorically contends that they have not contravened any of the provisions of the Customs Act and they also contend that since one of the cases has been dropped by the Customs Department and in respect of the other case, the petitioner has paid the admitted differential duty along with interest and further they having approached the settlement commission, it cannot be treated that the petitioner has contravened the provisions of the Customs Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents of the affidavit filed in support of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een considered; b) Having dropped one of the cases out of the two cases, registered against the petitioner and since the petitioner has already paid the differential duty and interest in respect of the bill of entries excepting for one, the respondents ought to have considered those aspects as well before coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for renewal of self sealing licence. 8. No personal hearing was also afforded to the petitioner as seen from the impugned communications. The petitioner also claims that they are having the self sealing licence for a period of 10 years and that they had also renewed the licence previously. The petitioner also claims that since they are a very large exporter of Solar M....