Disposed

M/S. Crown International and Anr. v. Union of India, Legal Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Feb 2014WP/1812/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a customs order imposing conditions for export. The court modified the cash security requirement from Rs.5 lakhs to a bank guarantee of Rs.2.5 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Direction that condition No.(ii) shall be modified to require a bank guarantee of Rs.2.5 lakh instead of cash security of Rs.5 lakh.

M/S. Crown International and Anr. Vs Union of India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

kambli

1812-14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

… WRIT PETITION NO.1812 OF 2014

¶7

M/s.Crown International & Anr. ...Petitioner v/s.

¶8

Union of India & ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr.Rohit Raheja i/b Legal Links for the petitioner. Mr.Pradeep S. Jetly for respondents.

¶11

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SANKLECHA, J. DATE : 27 FEBRUARY 2014

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

What is challenged in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the order dated 30 January 2014 of the Asst.Commissioner of Customs, SIIB, (Exports), Nhava Sheva.

¶14

The Commissioner of Customs has imposed following three conditions for provisional release of the goods covered under the shipping bills for Export:-

¶15

(I) The exporter should execute P.D.Bond of full FOB value.

¶16

(ii) The exporter should pay an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as a cash security.

¶17

(iii) Export benefit to be withheld till finalization of case.

1 of 3

kambli 2

1812-14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no objection to comply with conditions Nos. (i) & (iii), but as far as condition No.(ii) is concerned, the same is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the goods have not yet been seized and therefore such condition could not have been imposed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent-revenue submits that investigation is still going on and in case at the conclusion of the investigation the goods are liable to be confiscated, unconditional release of the goods without payment or deposit of any amount would prejudice the interest of the revenue. It is further submitted that if for the sake of argument it is assumed that the impugned order is illegal because the seizure order is not yet passed, upon being asked the counsel stated that respondent-authority is ready to pass an order of seizure. However, that would not carry the case any further.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the above submission the petitioner does not press the argument that order is illegal because the order of seizure is not yet passed. However he submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case the amount required to be deposited by the petitioner is too high. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, we are of the view that interests of justice would be served if the petition is disposed of with a direction that condition No.(ii) shall stand modified to the extent that the petitioner-exporter shall give a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.2.5 lakh in stead of payment or deposit of Rs.5 lakh as a cash security. This bank guarantee would be given to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva. It is directed accordingly.

2 of 3

kambli

1812-14