Messrs Maxim Tubes Company Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 19 September, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 9]

Gujarat High Court

Messrs Maxim Tubes Company Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 19 September, 2018

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi, B.N. Karia

        C/SCA/14558/2018                                      ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14558 of 2018

==========================================================
               MESSRS MAXIM TUBES COMPANY PVT LTD
                             Versus
                         UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
AMAL PARESH DAVE(8961) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2
MR PARESH M DAVE(260) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
        and
        HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

                      Date : 19/09/2018
                       ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1. Petitioners are exporters. Petitioners have challenged portion of notification dated 13.10.2017 issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India and another notification of the same date issued by the Ministry of Finance. It essentially provide that imports under advance authorisation for physical exports shall be subjected to "pre import condition". Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since several years the petitioners and other similarly situated exporters would import rawmaterials and inputs under advance authorisation to be used for exports where no such condition was imposed. In any case, the term "preimport Page 1 of 2 C/SCA/14558/2018 ORDER condition" has not been defined and is possible of misused. The departmental authorities are interpreting this term as to requiring the exporter to have advance authorisation license issued and imports completed under such license before goods meant for export can be manufactured and eventually exported. This would make the export cycle excessively long and in no case the exporters would be able to fulfill the export commitment under the export orders within reasonable time which the foreign importers would expect. Counsel pointed out that the Calcutta wing of BRI has initiated proceedings to inquire into the petitioners' past exports post such notifications and they propose to recover unpaid duties.

2. Notice returnable on 10.10.2018. By way of adinterim relief coercive recovery or proceedings for coercive recovery of the past transactions of the petitioners are stayed. The request of the counsel for the petitioners to stay the impugned condition in the said notifications shall be considered later.

(AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) K.K. SAIYED Page 2 of 2

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court