Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Skz Pulses And Milling Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 April, 2019
Author: I.P. Mukerji
Bench: I.P. Mukerji
1
02 03.04.19
M.A.T. 144 of 2019
With
R.V.W 78 of 2019
With
C.A.N. 3521 of 2019
M/s. SKZ Pulses and Milling Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Pranab Kumar Datta, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Indranil Banerjee
Mr. T. Agarwal
Mr. S. Agarwal
Ms. P. Ghosh
Mr. Soumyajit Mishra .... For the Appellant.
Ms. Sumitra Das .... For the Union of India.
Mr. K.K. Maity
Ms. S. Gupta ... For the Respondent.
This is a further application for modification of the order dated 25th February, 2019 as modified by the order dated 19th March, 2019.
This application is taken out by the appellant/writ petitioner.
Till date nothing is on record to show that any S.D. steps have been taken by the respondents to prefer an appeal or special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India against the aforesaid orders. 2 On the other hand Mr. Dutta learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that the subject goods are perishable in nature and rapidly deteriorating in value.
He also submits that even if the respondents succeed in their contemplated appeal before the Supreme Court, the goods in question are not in the negative list. At best only their importation could be restricted. His client is willing to secure whatever amount is determined by the Court as adequate security for releasing of the goods.
Mr. Maity for the respondents does not oppose release of the goods but says that the security which the appellant would be required to furnish should be determined by the respondent Customs Authorities.
He finds that there is substance in the contention of Mr. Dutta to the extent that the subject goods are not banned goods but only a restricted commodity. We also accept the contention that the goods are perishable in nature and fast depreciating in value.
We record that in terms of the said order of this Court dated 25th February, 2019 the appellant has furnished a bank guarantee as specified therein. 3
We direct the department to calculate the duty that would be payable on clearance of the goods on the basis of this order, at this point of time and the duty that was payable if the goods were cleared when the said notification was stayed by this Court. If there is any difference and the bank guarantee which has been furnished by the appellant does not take care of this difference the differential amount will have to be paid in cash by the appellant. This calculation shall be made by the respondent authorities within forty eight hours of service of a copy of this order upon them.
The differential duty as stated above is to be paid and on payment of such sum the goods shall be released within seventy two hours (holidays excepted) of receipt of the said sum.
The order dated 25th February, 2019 and 19th March, 2019 are modified to the above extent.
This application CAN 3521 of 2019 and RVW 78 of 2019 are disposed of.
Let a plain photocopy of this order duly counter signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to learned counsel for the parties on the usual undertaking.
4
(I.P. Mukerji, J.) (Md. Nizamuddin, J.)