AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent in permitting a provisional clearance of the goods
that were imported by the petitioner citing a classification dispute. In the writ petition, Ext.P13 judgment of this Court is produced to show that, when
similar items were imported on an earlier occasion, this Court had directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to clear the goods on furnishing a
Bank Guarantee for the differential duty confirmed by the respondent and making it clear that the Bank Guarantee for the differential duty should be
confined to only such amount that remained after excluding the 7.5% paid by way of deposit for maintaining an appeal against the assessment order
passed by the respondent.
I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, the writ petition is disposed by directing
the 3rd respondent to permit the provisional clearance of the goods covered by Ext.P1 series of Bills of Entry as also all the future consignments of
FIPS procured from SFO, on the petitioner furnishing a Bank Guarantee for the differential duty amount confirmed against him by the assessing
authority and ensuring that the Bank Guarantee for the differential duty is confined only to such amounts as remain after excluding the 7.5% paid by
way of deposit for maintaining an appeal against the adjudication order.
This writ petition is disposed as above.