2025 (11) TMI 1376

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rit of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to re-export the goods viz., 25881.30Kgs, viz.656 Bales of Viscose knitted Fabrics imported vide Bill of Entry No.7756257, dated 13.1.2025 and Bill of Lading No.EGLV143454289911. 2. The case of the petitioner is that they imported viscose knitted fabrics from China. These goods were shipped from M/s.Shaoxing Baochangcai Textile Co. Ltd., China through invoice dated 30.12.2024 and filed warehousing Bill of Entry dated 13.01.2025 for SEZ import Z type and claimed for clearance of the goods. 3. The investigation authorities informed the petitioner that investigation is being done and later, it was found that the goods declared under CTH 60064300 and the same has be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case in hand, at best, the goods may fall under Section 111(m) of the Act and that even in such an event, Section 125 gives an option to pay the fine in lieu of confiscation, which will be decided after adjudication. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siemens Ltd.Vs. Collector of Customs [reported in 1999 (113) ELT 776]. 10. By relying upon the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order in the case of Sankar Pandi Vs. Union of India [reported in 2002 (141) ELT 635] wherein it was held that the petitioner therein was ent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a or the petitioner can be permitted to re-export the goods to the supplier at China since the supplier had also agreed to take back the goods. 15. The logical end to the adjudication proceedings will result in directing the petitioner to pay the fine/penalty and differential duty. For this purpose, it is not necessary to retain the goods in India. Therefore, to strike a balance, considering the fact that the goods are lying in India from January 2025, certain conditions can be imposed on the petitioner and on fulfilment of the conditions so imposed, the petitioner can be permitted to re-export the goods. This view has been taken by this Court and other High Courts while granting such a relief. 16. In the light of the abov....