TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs Authorities can't withhold goods if duty paid. Court orders release with bond.</h1> The court held that the Customs Authorities were not justified in refusing to release the goods despite provisional duty payment. It was determined that ... Customs - Writ jurisdiction - Interim order Issues Involved:1. Refusal of Customs Authorities to release goods despite provisional duty payment.2. Legality of granting ad interim orders at the interim stage.3. Discretionary power of Customs Authorities under Section 47 of the Customs Act.4. Validity of provisional assessment and its revision.5. Conditions for release of goods pending final assessment.Detailed Analysis:1. Refusal of Customs Authorities to release goods despite provisional duty payment:The writ petitioner imported goods from Singapore, which arrived at Calcutta Port in September 1993. A Bill of Entry was filed, and the goods were provisionally assessed to duty on 7th October 1993. The petitioner paid Rs. 3,17,999/- as provisionally assessed and executed a bond for Rs. 1,89,285.00. Despite this, the Customs Authorities did not release the goods. The petitioner filed a writ application under Article 226 challenging the refusal to clear the goods, and an interim order was passed on 23rd November 1993 directing the release of the goods within a week. However, the respondents did not comply, leading to contempt proceedings and an appeal.2. Legality of granting ad interim orders at the interim stage:The appellant argued that the order was incorrectly passed at the ad interim stage without considering the fact that the provisional assessment was made without scrutinizing the goods. The court noted that ad interim orders can be granted in certain circumstances in ordinary civil proceedings, even if it amounts to decreeing the suit, provided there is no dispute as to the facts and the law is sufficiently clear. The court found no reason why the same principle should not be applied to writ proceedings.3. Discretionary power of Customs Authorities under Section 47 of the Customs Act:The court noted that the right of the Customs Authorities to refuse clearance under Section 47 is discretionary but statutorily regulated. Section 47 requires the proper officer to be satisfied that the goods are not prohibited and that the importer has paid the import duty assessed. In this case, the goods were not prohibited, and the provisional duty had been paid. Therefore, the court concluded that clearance under Section 47 could not be refused.4. Validity of provisional assessment and its revision:The appellant submitted that the provisional assessment can be revised under Section 17(4) of the Act. However, the court observed that there is no scope for implying the power of revision for provisional assessments, particularly given the specific provision for final assessments. The court emphasized that unless the final assessment is made, there is no scope for taking action under Sections 111(m) or 112(a) of the Act.5. Conditions for release of goods pending final assessment:The court noted that the writ petitioners were agreeable to furnish a bond for the excess duty claimed in the show cause notice. Consequently, the court affirmed the order under appeal and directed the release of the goods subject to the undertaking given in the court below and the execution of a bond for the sum alleged to be due on account of excess duty. The clearance was to be allowed within a week from the date of execution of such bond.Separate Judgments Delivered:Judgment by Ruma Pal, J.:Ruma Pal, J. agreed with the reasoning and affirmed the order under appeal, directing the release of the goods subject to the execution of a bond for the excess duty claimed.Judgment by Mukul Gopal Mukherji, J.:Mukul Gopal Mukherji, J. agreed with the reasoning but disagreed with the ultimate direction regarding the release of the goods. He emphasized the need for circumspection in granting interim orders, particularly in matters of public revenue. He suggested that the writ petitioners should furnish a bank guarantee covering the sum of Rs. 22,90,001/- for the release of the goods. If unable to do so, they should wait for the final assessment, which he directed the authorities to complete within a month.Final Order:Due to the difference in opinions, the matter was directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for assignment to a learned third Judge.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
