TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a foreign company could maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by asserting rights akin to Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14; (ii) whether the customs demand raised under Clause 9A of the Treaty of Transit was arbitrary or illegal; (iii) whether compensation could be claimed from the Indian authorities for the alleged theft and loss of goods in transit.
Issue (i): whether a foreign company could maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by asserting rights akin to Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14.
Analysis: Article 226 is not confined to citizens, but the availability of relief depends on the nature of the right asserted. The right sought to be enforced was found to be founded essentially on Article 19(1)(g), a fundamental right available to citizens and extended to Indian juristic persons, not to a foreign company. The authorities relied upon by the parties were distinguished on the basis that a foreign company cannot invoke Article 226 to enforce a claim resting on Article 19(1)(g), and the Article 14 challenge was not independently sustainable on the facts.
Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable in theory under Article 226, but the petitioner could not succeed on a claim founded on Article 19(1)(g) or on an independent Article 14 challenge.
Issue (ii): whether the customs demand raised under Clause 9A of the Treaty of Transit was arbitrary or illegal.
Analysis: Clause 9A required the importer to furnish a legally binding undertaking that, if the goods did not reach Nepal, the difference between the market value in India and the CIF value would be paid on demand to the Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner had furnished such an undertaking, the goods admittedly did not reach Nepal, and there was no showing that the demand exceeded the undertaking or the treaty obligation. On those facts, the demand could not be treated as arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of Article 14.
Conclusion: The customs demand was valid and lawful.
Issue (iii): whether compensation could be claimed from the Indian authorities for the alleged theft and loss of goods in transit.
Analysis: The treaty did not impose any obligation on the Indian Government to compensate for alleged theft in transit. The record did not establish conclusively that a theft had occurred, and the culmination of the criminal investigation was not produced. In the absence of proof of a treaty or legal obligation to compensate, no such relief could be granted.
Conclusion: The claim for compensation was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish any legal basis to invalidate the demand or to obtain compensation, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A foreign company cannot maintain a writ claim founded on Article 19(1)(g), and a customs demand made strictly in terms of a binding treaty undertaking is not arbitrary where the goods admittedly failed to reach their destination.
TaxTMI 
