Plot No.20 vs 2 The Assistant Commissioner
2010 Latest Caselaw 111 Bom

                                                       1                     WP No.7926 of 2010

    mmj
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                               
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

                                       WRIT PETITION NO.7926 OF  2010 




                                                                       
    M/s. AVG Impex Pvt. Ltd.                                     ]
    301, Commercial Complex                                      ]




                                                                      
    Plot No.20, Shivam Tower                                     ]
    Paschim Vihar New Delhi                                      ].... Petitioner

                         versus




                                                          
    1         Union of India Through the                         ]
              Secretary Ministry Offinance                       ]
              Dedicated Legal Cell
              JNCH Nhava Sheva Tal. Uran
              Dist. Raigad Maharashtra
                                            ig                   ]
                                                                 ]
                                                                 ]
                                                                 ]
                                          
    2         The Assistant Commissioner                         ]
              of Customs, Group V A                              ]
              Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House                     ]
              Dist. Raigad, Maharashtra-400 707                  ].... Respondents.
          
       



    Mr. Ashok Singh for the Petitioner

    Mr. G.N. Srinivasan for the Respondents 





                                                 CORAM :-     V.C.DAGA & R.M.SAVANT,JJ. 

                                                  DATE     :-    27th OCTOBER ,2010


    JUDGMENT : (PER VIJAY DAGA, J)





    1                    Rule, returnable forthwith. 

    2                    Perused Petition.

    3                    Heard the Learned Counsel  for the Petitioner and the Learned 

    Counsel appearing for the Respondents.







    4                The Petitioner is seeking the return of bank guarantee with the 




                                                                                              

endorsement "cancelled". According to the submission made, by this time the

department ought to have returned the bank guarantee duly cancelled, so as to

enable the Petitioner to return it to its banker and get it discharged.

5 Needless to mention that mere pendency of the Appeal filed by

the Revenue cannot be a ground to refuse to return the bank guarantee,

especially, when there is no financial recovery against the Petitioner as on date.

The Respondents are put on notice that it is always obligatory on the part of

the Respondents to return the bank guarantee within a reasonable period with

proper endorsement thereon if the purpose of security is over, so that the

guarantor, who has given the guarantee can be discharged of the liability

flowing from the bank guarantee. The bank guarantee can only be withheld

subject to the order of the Competent Tribunal or Superior Court.

6 In the above view, we direct the Respondents to return the duly

cancelled or discharged the bank guarantee to the Petitioner within a period of

seven days from today, failing which the Department shall be liable to pay

penalty quantified at Rs.1000/- per day until it is returned. The amount of

penalty shall be recoverable from the salary of the officer, who may be

responsible to implement this order. The learned counsel for the Respondents

takes note of this order and undertakes to communicate the same to the

concerned authority.

7 The Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of this

order with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the Petitioner.

    (R.M.SAVANT,J.)                                                  (V.C.DAGA,J.)