BINNY LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS); ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (BONDS); SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS (BONDS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved over the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the writ petitioner has filed the present Writ Appeal.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of this Writ Appeal are as follows:

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant made strenuous efforts to re-export the imported goods and out of 200 containers, 139 containers were re-exported in the year 2005 itself and thereafter, they have taken vigorous steps to re-export the goods lying in the balance containers and the same could not be achieved due to lack of permission from the respondents, despite having prospective buyers. Learned senior counsel further submits that the Circular dated 14.01.2003 issued by the Government of India squarely applies to the case of the Appellant and entitles the Appellant to re-export the goods imported. Learned senior counsel also submits that the highest bidder for e-auction held on 23.12.2011 did not fulfill the terms and the sale proceedings were subsequently cancelled by the respondents and the goods were not put to auction. In such circumstances, the request of the Appellant for re-export of the balance imported goods should be considered, in accordance with the Circular dated 14.01.2003. However, without considering those aspects, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant.