Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Section 3 in The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Section 9A in The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Agricas Llp on 26 August, 2020
In fact,
any invocation of equity in these matters is even otherwise ruled out in
view of specific rejection of the claim of bona fide imports by this Court in
Agricas (supra). Once this Court has reached to the conclusion that a
particular action is wanting in bona fide, the perpetrator cannot claim any
relief in equity in relation to the same action. Absence of bona fide in a
claimant and his claim of equity remain incompatible and cannot stand
together."
Union Of India vs M/S Raj Grow Impex Llp on 17 June, 2021
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. Raj Grow Impex
LLP and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 429 while considering the effect of the
notification issued by the Central Government under the FTDR Act and also
consequential Trade notices issued by the DGFT held as follows:
The Customs Act, 1962
M/S International Seaport Dredging Ltd vs Cc & St, Visakhapatnam-Cus on 2 September, 2016
The issue involved in this appeal is as regards the effect of the notification
issued under the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act,
5
1992. The learned Tribunal had followed the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of
the Tribunal in the case of International Seaport Dredging Ltd. vs. C.C. & S.T.,
Visakhapatnam, 2016 (342) E.L.T. 123 (Tri.-Hyd.) and held that the betel nuts
which were imported by the respondent by declaring the prices which were less
than the minimum import price specified by the DGFT cannot be held as import of
prohibited goods. Consequently, the order of confiscation was set aside along with
the order for payment of redemption fine and penalty.
(Union Of India & Ors vs Navin Kumar Jha & Ors.) on 7 November, 2014
The above decisions are of much relevance to the case on hand. However,
as observed earlier, they could not be placed before the Tribunal because these
decisions were rendered much after the order was passed by the Tribunal.
However, on the date when the Tribunal passed the impugned order, the decision
in the case of Navin Kr. Jha (supra) passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court was very much available and that decision being one of the jurisdictional
authority of the Court would bind the Tribunal.
Section 18A in The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
1