Disposed

Barry Callebaut India Private Limited, v. Mr. Ais Kumar and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2014NMW/373/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Notice of Motion, the Bombay High Court directed the customs respondent to consider the applicant's request to re-export recalled goods within two weeks and to inform the Commissioner of Customs of any objection.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.5 to consider the request for re-export of recalled goods and inform Customs of no objection within two weeks.

Barry Callebaut India Private Limited, Vs Mr. Ais Kumar… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

906-nmwl-518-14

¶2

dss

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 518 OF 2014 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 220 OF 2014

¶6

Barry Callebaut India Pvt. Ltd.

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

In the matter of Barry Callebaut India Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner Vs.

¶9

Mr. Ais Kumar and ors.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

¶12

Ms Naira Jee Jeebhoy a/w Ms Anshika Misa, Ms Veena D'Souza i/b AZB & Partner for the Applicant.

¶13

Mr. Mohammed Pracha a/w. Ms Pranali Dixit a/w. Mr. T.W. Pathan a/w. Ms Yogita Singh i/b Legal Axis for Respondent Nos.1 to 7. Mr. B. M. Chatterji, Sr. Counsel with Mr. D.P. Singh for Respondent No.8.

¶14

¶15

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, AND M. S. SONAK, JJ.

¶16

DATE : 11 DECEMBER , 2014

¶17

P. C.

¶18

1] By this motion, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:

¶19

“a) order and direct the Respondent No. 5 to confirm to the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House that the Petitioner's request for re-export of the goods recalled may be considered;

¶20

1 / 3

¶21

906-nmwl-518-14

¶22

b) order and direct the Respondent No. 5 to confirm to the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House that Respondent No.5 has no objection to the re-export of the goods imported by the Petitioner; c) in the alternative to prayers (a) and (b) above, declare order and direct that the pendency of the present Petition and / or the Recall Letters issued by Respondent No. 5 do not preclude the Custom authorities from considering the Petitioner's request for re-export of the Products recalled or the Products at the customs warehouse ;

¶23

d) grant the costs of this Notice of Motion ; and e) grant such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the nature and circumstances of the case.”

¶24

2] The contention of the applicant is that though the applicant had written a letter in June 2014 requesting Respondent No.5 to reexport the goods which were not permitted to be imported in India, the decision has been taken now only in December 2014 by respondent No.5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the applicant is required to follow the procedure before the goods can be allowed to be re-exported.

¶25

3] In our view, this notice of motion can be conveniently disposed of by directing respondent No.5 to consider the applicant's request for re-export of the goods, which have been recalled within a period of two weeks from today. The applicant shall cooperate with

¶26

2 / 3

¶27

906-nmwl-518-14

¶28

respondent No.5 and give all particulars which are required to be handed over to them. Once permission is granted by respondent No.5 for re-export of the goods which have not entered in the market or have not been cleared by Customs, respondent No.5 to inform the Commissioner of Customs that they have no objection to reexport the goods imported by the applicant. The said procedure to be completed within a period of two weeks from today.

¶29

4] It is clarified that those goods which are not the subject matter of the petition and in respect of which no order of recall has been passed by respondent No.5 and which are still lying in the Warehouse of the Customs are permitted to be reexported.

¶30

5] With this direction, Notice of Motion is disposed of.

¶31

6] Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶32

[M. S. SONAK, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶33

Dinesh

¶34

3 / 3

Barry Callebaut India Private Limited, v. Mr. Ais Kumar and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Barry Callebaut India Private Limited, v. Mr. Ais Kumar and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhindra Sharma Vs a. K. Maitra and Ors.

Babubhai @ Zaverchand Harjivan Sheth Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Sudhagad Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Alfa Mana Realtors Pvt.Ltd and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Jrevenue and Forest Department and 5 Jors

Parag Prabhakar More Vs Union of India and Anr.

Roshni Ashish Kapila Vs Board of Directors of Bank of Baroda AND16 Ors.