LINK ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Hriday Buch, learned standing counsel, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the nature and scope of the controversy involved in the present case as well as having regard to the fact that the learned counsel for the respective parties have addressed the Court at length, the matter was heard finally at the admission stage.

(2.) The petitioner had applied for, and was granted a licence for a private bonded warehouse under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner, accordingly, had executed a warehousing bond in accordance with Section 59 of the Act. The warehousing bond was also supported by two bank guarantees of Rs. 5,00,000/- each, one for the private bonded warehouse licence and the other as a transit bond security.

(3.) The private bonded warehouse of the petitioner was at Godown No. 12, Survey No. 288, N.H. No. 8, Mithi Rohar, Gandhidham. The petitioner had surrendered the private bonded warehouse licence which was obtained for storage of ships stores like cigarettes, liquors, lubricating oils and other consumable articles for being supplied to foreign-going vessels. The customs authorities accepted the surrender request of the petitioner for releasing the godown keys and also by lifting the customs control over the said warehouse/godown in April, 2014. Accordingly, the petitioner no longer holds any licence for private bonded warehouse. According to the petitioner, it is, therefore, entitled to receive the bank guarantees lying with the customs authorities and, therefore, vide letter dated 22nd September, 2014 requested the respondents No. 2 and 3 to release the bank guarantees. Certain correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the Department, which took a decision that it was not prudent to return the bank guarantees in view of three cases pending against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that insofar as the three cases pending against it are concerned, orders have been passed by the concerned customs authority against the petitioner and the petitioner herein has preferred appeals against the said orders before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") which has allowed the stay applications by passing three separate stay orders. Such stay orders are still in operation and accordingly there is a stay against recovery of the disputed amounts of penalty in the petitioner's favour. Since the customs authorities have not released the bank guarantees, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a direction to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to forthwith return the original bank guarantee papers of Bank Guarantee No. 1996/22, dated 12th December, 1996 and Bank Guarantee No. 2003/13, dated 29th December, 200