Disposed

M/S. Mysore Sales International Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2021WP/2165/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed against an order imposing a redemption fine for the release of seized river sand. The petitioner argued for release subject to a pending appeal on differential duty. The Court directed release of goods subject to the final appeal outcome without further adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to permit petitioner to lift seized goods subject to final outcome of pending appeal.

M/S. Mysore Sales International Limited Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.2165/2021 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/s. Mysore Sales International Limited, MSIL House, 36, Cunningham Road, Bengaluru - 560 052. Represented by authorized signatory H.P. Prakash, Residing at No.304, Palace - Apartment, Palace Cross Road, Bangalore - 20. … Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri G. Shivadass, Senior Advocate a/w Sri Prashanth Sabarish, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), 55-17-3, C-14, 2^nd Floor, Industrial Estate, Autonagar, Vijayawada - 520 007. … Respondent

¶12

(By Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate)

¶13

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 03.12.2020 at Annexure-A to the extent it imposed redemption fine as a condition for release of 99497 MTs of natural river sand and etc.

¶14

This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present petition has been filed by M/s.Mysore Sales International Limited (MSIL) seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the order vide No.VID-CUSTMPRV-COM-002-02-20-21 dated 03.12.2020 at Annexure-A to the extent it imposed redemption fine as a condition for release of 99497 Metric Tonnes of natural river sand. Further, a direction is sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to release the goods seized as per the Mahazar dated 17.06.2019 at Annexure-C.

¶18

Upon notice, learned counsel Jeevan J. Neeralgi, appears for the respondent.

¶19

Sri G.Shivadass, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Sri Prashanth Sabarish for the petitioner submits that the present petition is restricted to the release of seized/confiscated goods as detailed in the operative portion of the order [Sl.No.(iv)] at Annexure-A.

¶20

¶21

Learned Senior Counsel submits that as per the communication dated 25.07.2019, the request of the petitioner for release of goods was directed provisionally after obtaining the bond for the full value of seized goods and after taking the bank guarantee as a security deposit for 10% of differential duty of Rs.1,18,04,236/-.

¶22

It is further submitted that the petitioner Company has executed the P.D.Bond dated 29.07.2019, covering the commercial value of the seized goods as referred in the show cause notice. The reference to execution of such bond is found at Document No.2 of the memo filed on 12.02.2021.

¶23

It is further submitted that the bank guarantee for Rs.11,80,000/- being 10% of the differential duty as claimed in the show cause notice drawn on Bank of Baroda, Cunningham Road Branch, Bengaluru has also been furnished. Copy of the bond is enclosed at Document No.3 and the validity of bank guarantee is till 18.07.2021, as

¶24

¶25

evidenced from the document at page-11 dated 09.09.2020 produced alongwith the memo.

¶26

In light of the above facts, the petition does not

¶27

call for further adjudication. It is to be noticed that the ground of levy of differential duty of Rs.1,18,04,236/- is a matter which the petitioner submits is being pursued by way of challenge before the Appellate Authority, which the petitioner intends to pursue.

¶28

In light of the facts as noted above, the respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to lift the goods under seizure and such release is however subject to the final outcome of appeal to be filed.

¶29

Keeping open all the contentions, the petition is disposed off , as not requiring any further adjudication.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

VGR

M/S. Mysore Sales International Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Mysore Sales International Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P Manikandan Vs M/S Vaigai Thread Processors Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Malasani Linga Setty Sarala Vs the Income Tax Officer

Smt Malasani Veerannasetty Radhalaxmi Vs the Income Tax Officer

Mr M H Sachin Vs Mr S M Sunil

M/S S K Construction Vs the General Manager

Sri Mohammed Daanish Zackria Vs M/S Paddy'S Properties LLP