Air Travel Bureau Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 481 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been issued a show cause notice on 15.2.2005 giving him 30 days time for reply. The said period is not yet over. The allegation against the petitioner is that it has failed to meet the export obligation with regard to the benefit taken of concessional duty for import of BMW Cars. Petitioner submits that his reply to the show cause notice is yet to be given and before the expiry of the time respondents have written to the bank invoking the bank guarantee.

2. Issue notice to respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued. Notice in the application also. Mr. Rahul Kaushik appears on behalf of respondents and waives services of notice.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that this step was taken by way of abundant precaution as the bank guarantee had been executed for a period of six months, which was to expire on 12.2.2005. Without going into any further controversy, Counsel for the petitioner submits that they would extend the bank guarantee and keep the same alive till the adjudication proceedings are determined finally. It is also stated that adjudication proceedings are to commence before the Commissioner of Customs.

4. Counsel for respondents submits that they would be satisfied if the bank guarantee is kept alive during the adjudication and till finalization of the adjudication proceedings. Subject to the above, Counsel for respondent states that they would not proceed to encash the bank guarantee and its encashment would be subject to outcome of adjudication proceedings.

5. In this view of the matter, petitioners to keep the bank guarantee alive till the finalization of the adjudication proceedings and two months thereafter. The invocation of the bank guarantee stands withdrawn.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of dusty.