:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION (L)NO.1519 OF 2008 PETITION (L)NO.1519 OF 2008 PETITION (L)NO.1519 OF 2008 CGU Logistic Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.E.P.Bharucha, Senior Advocate with Mr.Bomi Patel i/b.Mulla & Mulla & C.B.C.for the Petitioner. Mr.A.J.Rana, Senior Advocate with Mrs.N.V.Masurkar for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V.NIRGUDE, A.V.NIRGUDE, A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 27TH JUNE, 2008 : 27TH JUNE, 2008 : 27TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents waives service. By consent taken up for hearing. 2. By this Petition, the Petitioner is basically challenging the letter dated 2nd June,2008 with regard to his representation made on 28th May,2008. It appears that the Petitioner had imported a vessel and on which according to the Petitioner, the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Notification 21/2002-Customs Entry 352 Chapter 89.01, and as such, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner Mr.Bharucha submitted that the Petitioner is not liable to pay any duty, provided the Petitioner :2: fulfils the requisite conditions. It appears that there is no dispute that the Petitioner is fulfilling all the conditions, however Mr.Rana, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents submitted that even if the Petitioner fulfils all the conditions, the Petitioner’s case is squarely covered under 353 Chapter 8905.90, wherein the duty will be 5% and if the above duty was to be calculated at 5%, as per the submissions of Mr.Rana, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents, the amount comes to Rs.7,77,22,252.34. 3. The main grievance of the Petitioner is, that the new vessel has been lying in the Port since 29th March,2008. Over and above, it appears that aggrieved by the original assessment, the Petitioner had filed an Appeal before the Commissioner and in fact the full hearing had taken on 23rd May,2008 and the learned Commissioner was to pass final order however, unfortunately, the said Commissioner has been transferred. In view thereof, the order cannot be passed. Mr.Bharucha and Mr.Rana the learned Senior Counsel for both the parties submit that the Appeal which is now pending before the present Commissioner, can be expeditiously decided preferably within a period of two weeks from today. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we pass the following order: :3: 4. The Petitioner shall deposit 50% of the amount of Rs.7,77,22,252.34 and also furnish a bank guarantee of any Nationalised Bank for the balance 50% of Rs.7,77,22,252.34 with Respondent No.2. Upon depositing the 50% of Rs.7,77,22,252.34 and upon furnishing the bank guarantee for the balance 50%, the Respondents shall release the vessel. The Petitioner is also given an option to deposit the entire amount of Rs.7,77,22,252.34 with Respondent No.2 instead of furnishing bank guarantee of 50% of Rs.7,77,22,252.34. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the pending Appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks from today. 6. The Petitioner undertakes to keep the bank guarantee alive for a period of six weeks after the disposal of the Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. The Respondents shall not invoke the bank guarantee for a period of four weeks from the date of disposal of the Appeal. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)