M/S PRINTWELL OFFSET Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Hardik Modh, learned advocate, for the petitioner, has tendered a draft amendment. The amendment is allowed in terms of the draft. The same shall be carried out forthwith.

(2.) This petition is directed against (1) the interim order dtd. 2/12/2015 passed by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade whereby:

(3.) Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, Senior Advocate, learned counsel with Mr. Hardik Modh, learned advocate, for the petitioner, stated under instructions that at this stage the petitioner is not pressing the relief prayed for vide paragraph 11(a)(i) of the petition as the matter is pending consideration before the concerned authority. It was submitted that insofar as the sealing of the machines imported by the petitioner is concerned, the same does not benefit either of the parties inasmuch as, if the machines remain under seizure, they will be depleted. It was further submitted that assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner has not completed the export obligation, even then, the period for completion of export obligation is not yet over and hence, the seizure of the machines also prevents the petitioner from fulfilling the export obligation within the stipulated time limit. Referring to paragraph 5.11 of the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme, it was submitted that the scheme provides for extension of the period for fulfilment of the export obligation, and hence, as on date, the machines in question are required to be released at the earliest subject to such terms and conditions, as may be stipulated by this court. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD, New Delhi, 2011 (267) E.L.T. 483 (Del), wherein the court had held that in the absence of any definite parameters having been laid down for the exercise of power under Sec. 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 the only option that would be available to the court would be to fall back on the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 1963. The court was of the opinion that the guidelines laid down in these Regulations, in the absence of any other guidelines available to it, would equally apply in the case of a seizure under Sec. 110A of the Act. It was pointed out that the court in the said case had permitted release of the goods of the appellants therein on furnishing a bond of 20% of the differential duty, that is to say the duty claimed by the respondents, minus the duty already paid by the appellants in the first instance and that the court did not deem it appropriate to continue with the condition requiring the appellants to deposit 25% of the value of the seized goods by way of a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the respondents. It was submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to restore the bank guarantee of Rs.43.50 lakh which had been returned to the petitioner upon issuance of the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate and that the petitioner may at best be called upon to deposit an additional bank guarantee of Rs.50.00 lakh.