This petition was disposed of by the Bombay High Court on 19th October 2005 directing the Commissioner to dispose of the respondents application for re export of the goods by a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner.
The respondent also filed Writ Petition No.
4655 of 2006 before the Bombay High Court seeking a clarification that the order passed on 9th August 2006 was with companysent of both parties.
Several numberices were thereafter issued to the respondent under Section 72 1 of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter called the Act raising a demand of duty etc.
4655 of 2006 before the Bombay High Court for a direction to re export the goods.
This order was challenged by the respondent in Writ Petition No.60 of 2006 before the Bombay High Court once again praying that it be permitted to export the goods outside India.
18978/2007 on the ground that numberconsent had even been given by it at the time when the order dated 9th August 2006 had been made by the High Court.
Undeterred the respondent then moved an application before the Bombay High Court seeking a review of the order dated 13th January 2006.
The respondent then approached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT by way of an appeal challenging the order of the Chief Commissioner dated 3rd January 2006.
As numberreply was forthcoming, a numberice under section 72 2 of the Act was issued to the respondent on 3rd December 2001 for sale of the goods by auction so as to recover of the outstanding dues.
The auction of the goods was duly advertised and it was actually held on the 28th of September 2005 and on the same day the respondent made a request for permission to re export the goods under section 69 1 of the Act and for the cancellation of the auction sale.
This Writ Petition came up for hearing before the High Court on 26th July 2006 and the High Court directed the department to file a statement as to the expenses that had been incurred by it till date.
Interestingly, however, the respondent vide his letter dated 31st December 2004 also surrendered the goods with the result that it ceased to have any claim over them.
6907 of 2005 before the Bombay High Court for permission to re export the goods.
This application too was dismissed on the 22nd February 2006.
This petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit vide order dated 13th January 2006 and a Special Leave Petition against the said order was dismissed by this Court on 3rd February 2006.
This order has been impugned in the present Special Leave Petition.
This appeal too was dismissed as withdrawn on the request of the respondent.
The re auction was held on 14th July 2006 and the petitioner received a bid of Rs.3.78 crores which was sufficient to meet only a part of the demand.
A security deposit of about Rs.10, 00,000/ and an advance customs duty of about Rs.98, 00,000/ were deposited with the department on 31st March 1998 but the goods were still number cleared.
The respondent thereafter moved an application in CWP No.
The department thereupon filed a detailed affidavit in the Bombay High Court pointing out the repeated defaults on the part of the respondent and that the protracted proceedings in one forum or the other had resulted in a revenue loss of Rs.8.55 crores.
The department thereupon initiated proceedings for the re auction of the goods on which the respondent submitted a letter dated 8th June 2006 for permission to re export the goods to the UAE though without any supporting documents.
The Chief Commissioner by his order dated 3rd January 2006 rejected the request of the respondent to clear the goods for export to the SEZ without payment of the duty on the plea that such an export was number envisaged as it was within the companyntry.
The respondent thereafter applied for the extension of the warehousing period which was allowed by the Commissioner, Customs on 5th September 1997 upto 31st March 1998.
On 18th July 2006 the respondent filed yet another Writ Petition No.
The facts have been taken from SLP No.
The Division Bench in its order dated 14th February 2007 observed that though the order dated 9th August 2006 did number specifically say that it was an order by companysent but the understanding was that it was in fact so.
As the said import companyld be entitled to a companycessional rate of duty on the production of the appropriate certificates which were then number available with the importer, the goods were warehoused in one of the bonded godowns of the Central Warehousing Corporation on 30th May 1996 for an initial period of one year.
This Writ Petition was disposed of by the order dated 9th August 2006 by accepting the undertaking of the respondent to re export the goods by 14th September 2006 without calling upon the respondent to pay any duty.
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1356 2008 arising out of S.L.P. C No.
This order has been impugned by the Union of India in the companynected Special Leave Petition No.
The personal hearing was given to the respondent on 28th November 2005 wherein it was proposed to export the goods to a unit operating in the special economic zone SEZ Pithampur in Madhya Pradesh.
These appeals filed by the Union of India arise out of the following facts On 6.3.1996 the respondent Shakti LPG Ltd. imported 1714.5 MT of boiler steel plates worth Rs.
4.79 crores claiming that the said goods would be utilized for the extension of their storage terminal at Kakinada.
15278/2006.
15278/2006 WITH C.A No 1357 2008 arising out of SLP NO.18978/2007 HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J. Leave granted.
