THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.17824 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in not dealing with the representation said to have been submitted on 13.5.2011 as also on 9.6.2011. It is stated that the petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of Intravenous Therapy Device used by the hospitals and health care providers. The petitioner manufactures disposable intravenous sets and needles. The petitioner obtained a license on 10.5.1995 under Part 38 of Export and Import Policy 1992-97. The petitioner has imported the machinery worth US$ 1297990 (INR 4,09,51,585/-) in the year 1995 and had correspondingly undertaken an export obligation worth four times more which is working out to a little more than 16.38 Crores of Indian Rupees. The petitioner was accorded five year period to accomplish fully the export obligations. The petitioner has failed to accomplish this obligation. The Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, issued policy guidelines on 31.3.2001 for grant of extension of export obligation period up to 31.3.2002. The 4th respondent Bank has extended the bank guarantee up to 31.3.2003. The petitioner has applied for extension of time on 30.4.2001. On 19.2.2002, the 3rd respondent – Joint Commissioner of Customs issued proceedings demanding the petitioner to pay customs duty of Rs.93,07,800/- for the machinery imported by it as the petitioner has failed to meet fully the export obligation. The 3rd respondent has also solicited interest to be paid at the rate of 24% on the customs duty payable. The petitioner tried to reason it out with the Joint Commissioner of Customs that it is seeking extension of time for accomplishing the export obligations and hence it may not be proceeded any further for realization of the customs duty payable. However, on 7.3.2002, the 3rd respondent – Joint Commissioner of Customs invoked the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner in a sum of Rs. 44,49,371/- towards payment of arrears of customs duty and interest. At this stage, the writ petitioner filed WP No. 4890 of 2002 questioning this action of the Joint Commissioner in invoking the bank guarantee. But, however, on 19.3.2002, the Joint Commissioner of Customs issued proceedings keeping the earlier communication dated 7.3.2002 invoking the bank guarantee in abeyance. Hence, it is claimed, that WP No. 4890 of 2002 was dismissed as infructuous by this court on 28.1.2011. In the meantime, the petitioner has filed a reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Company (Special Provision) Act, 1985 which was registered as Reference No. 453 of 2001 by the Board of Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR) and took it up for hearing on 19.3.2002. On 3.1.2003, the BIFR was satisfied that the petitioner company has become a sick industrial company and appointed Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) as Operating Agency in terms of Section 17(3) of the aforementioned Act. Subsequently, a rehabilitation scheme was issued and the financial position of the company had made a dramatic improvement in view of the efforts put in by the Operating Agency viz., the IDBI. Therefore, BIFR passed an order on 20.8.2008 calling for a report from the Operating Agency viz., IDBI and based upon the report, the scheme of rehabilitation has been approved by the BIFR. Orders to that effect have been passed on 27.4.2010, as the net worth of the company, has been shown from the year 2006-07 onwards as positive. It is, therefore, now prayed that if the respondents 1 and 2 consider the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the policy announced by the Director General of Foreign Trade, the matter relating to clearing the customs duty can be worked out. Now that the petitioner company’s net worth has been shown as positive and if a reasonable period of time is granted by the respondents 1 and 2, for accomplishing the unfulfilled foreign trade obligations by the petitioner, if such a course of action is feasible, perhaps it can avail the benefit of not paying up the import duty as demanded by the 4th respondent. Instead of keeping this writ petition pending any further, it would only be appropriate that the respondents 1 and 2 should consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation said to have been submitted by the petitioner on 13.5.2011 and on 9.6.2011 as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the policy decision taken by them with regard to grant of extension of time for accomplishing the foreign trade obligations and communicate the same to the writ petitioner herein as well as to the 3rd respondent – Joint Commissioner of Customs. Based upon the decision of the respondents 1 and 2, the 3rd respondent would regulate the exercise relating to recovery of import/customs duty from the writ petitioner company. Until a decision is taken by the respondents 1 and 2, the 3rd respondent may not invoke the bank guarantee, which the petitioner now undertook to furnish within a period of 30 days, as the bank guarantee which he originally furnished has expired during the pendency of the litigation either in this court or before the BIFR. This order is passed, after hearing the learned Assistant Solicitor General Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud for respondents 1 and 2, Sri A.Rajasekhara Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri M.E.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the 4th respondent – Bank apart from Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. ------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohan Rao, J knk 18-10-2011