2026 (1) TMI 1220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpugned order-in-original on the ground that the goods were imported by the petitioner under a Special Advance Authorization issued by the Assistant DGFT, Coimbatore, as the concept of Minimum Import Price, as reflected in DGFT Notification No.77/2023, dated 16.03.2024, relied upon by the respondents in the impugned order-in-original does not arise. The petitioner further contends that no customs duty is payable by him under the Special Advance Authorization Scheme of the DGFT. Therefore, according to the petitioner, without authority under law, the first respondent has passed the impugned order-in-original confiscating the imported goods and has also imposed penalty. The petitioner also contends that the Notification No.77/2023 relied upon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not been considered in the impugned order-in-original. According to the petitioner, it is settled law that once the petitioner has obtained a Special Advance Authorization for the subject goods, they are not liable to pay customs duty for the purpose of obtaining release of the goods to enable them to make improvement and return the goods to the wholesale buyer in U.S.A. The petitioner had also given a representation before the first respondent, who has passed the impugned order-in-original, giving detailed explanation as to why the petitioner is not liable to pay customs duty for the subject goods. 6. However, as seen from the impugned order-in-original, the detailed explanation given by the petitioner has not been considered by the re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....considered by the respondents, failing which the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. 8. Since the impugned order-in-original is not a speaking order, with regard to the contentions of the petitioner raised in this Writ Petition, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order-in-original has to be quashed and the matter be remanded back to the very same respondent for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to submit their explanation once again to the respondents as raised in this Writ Petition that they are not liable to pay any customs duty in view of the fact that they have already obtained the Special Advance Authorization for the subject goods. Necessarily, the responde....