Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 34 (GUJ)

BHAIRAVI EXIM PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA

2005-01-20

B.J.SHETHNA, SHARAD D.DAVE

body2005
B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. By letter dated 17. 7. 2002 (Annexure : E) the Superintendent, Central Excise, A. R. IV, Div. V. Ahmedabad, directed the petitioner not to carry out any further removal of raw-materials/semi finished goods/finished goods under Self Removal Procedure and the SRP facility of the unit was withdrawn till further orders. Thereafter, by letter dated 26. 7. 2002 the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division V, Ahmedabad I, directed the petitioner to pay up the duty liability involved in three cases within 10 days of receipt of the said letter, failing which the office may initiate enforcing their B/17 Bond and/or launching offence case against them on the ground that three Exports effected by their merchant Exporter M/s. Systematic Corporation, Mumbai, were not at all effected and the proof of export submitted by them to their office was forged (Annexure : F ). Aggrieved by this the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition on 2. 8. 2002. On 5. 8. 2002 the Division Bench of this Court issued Notice making it returnable on 2. 9. 2002 and also passed speaking interim order by which it was clarified that pendency of this petition would not preclude the respondents and other Authorities like the Director of Revenue (Intelligence) from carrying out necessary inquiry/investigation against the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 in respect of the allegations contained in the letter dated 26. 7. 2002 (Annexure : F ). ( 2 ) IT seems that inspite of this direction, issued to the respondents, nothing was done in the matter and ultimately on 17. 9. 2002 another Division Bench of this Court admitted the matter by issuing Rule on it and granted interim relief in terms of Para : 11 (E ). The said interim relief is operating till today in favour of the petitioner. ( 3 ) IT seems that at the initial stage no reply to the petition was filed when the Notice was issued to the respondents. But, later on, after admission of the petition, detailed Reply Affidavit dated 29. 10. 2002 was filed wherein it is contended that the petitioner has forged F. No. and signature which does not belong to the office of Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva. This has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing Rejoinder. But, later on, after admission of the petition, detailed Reply Affidavit dated 29. 10. 2002 was filed wherein it is contended that the petitioner has forged F. No. and signature which does not belong to the office of Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva. This has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing Rejoinder. ( 4 ) BY way of this petition the petitioner has also prayed that the respondents-authorities be directed to take appropriate action against its merchant Exporter Systematic Corporation - present respondent No. 4 for the exports made by it. Though served, the respondent No. 4 has not made its appearance through any Advocate. ( 5 ) BY letter dated 26. 7. 2002 (Annexure : F) it was found by the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Div. V, Ahmedabad - 1, that three exports were effected by the petitioner through its merchant Exporter M/s. Systematic Corporation, Mumbai. But, on careful scrutiny and examination it was found that no such exports were ever made and the proof regarding such export, submitted to the Office of Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, was forged one. Thus, the petitioner was held to be responsible for this act. At the cost of repetition we may state that specific averments made in Reply Affidavit by the respondents that on inquiry it was found that it was the petitioner who forged F. No. and signature of the office of the Commissioner of Customs which does not belong to the said Office and the same remained uncontroverted. ( 6 ) IN view of the above, we do not find any substance in the submission made by Shri Dave that without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, issuing direction on 26. 7. 2002 by the Authority to the petitioner, calling upon it to pay up the duty liability involved in three cases within 10 days from the receipt of the same was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had already submitted B-17 Bond and as per the terms and conditions of the said Bond if the Authority is satisfied that forged proof of export was submitted to the office without actual export being effected then the Authority would be entitled to enforce the said Bond. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Rule discharged. Interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Rule discharged. Interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated. No order as to costs. .