1999 (9) TMI 100 - HC - Customs

Court directs department to conclude investigation on EOU scheme violation, with expedited action for perishable goods

The court refrained from making a decision on the merits of the case concerning the violation of conditions for importing capital goods without duty ... Writ jurisdiction Issues:Violation of conditions for importation of capital goods without payment of duty, authority of the department to issue a restraint order, permissibility of third-party export, consequences of infringement of conditions, necessity of passing a final order in ongoing investigation.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a case where a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of boneless buffalo meat imported capital goods without paying custom duty/excise duty under an Export Oriented Unit (EOU) scheme. The Excise Department alleged that the company violated conditions by allowing another entity to carry out manufacturing, leading to a restraint order under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner argued that exporting through a third party was permissible as per the Export and Import Policy and contended that the department's actions were premature as the investigation was ongoing. The petitioner also highlighted potential irreparable damage due to the restraint order, affecting perishable goods and foreign exchange earnings.The department reiterated its stance in a written statement, emphasizing the alleged violations of agreements with multiple entities for manufacturing operations, which they deemed non-compliant with the EOU permissions. The respondents argued that the statistical information provided did not align with the criteria for third-party export, pointing out specific instances where the manufacturer's name was different from the petitioner's. They expressed concerns about potential misuse of permissions and highlighted the authority under Section 111 of the Act to confiscate goods for violations.The court, after hearing both parties, refrained from expressing opinions on the merits of the contentions due to the ongoing investigation. Instead, the court directed the department to conclude the investigation and issue a final order by a specified date. Until then, the restraint order would remain in effect, with provisions for expedited action due to the perishable nature of the goods. The judgment aimed to balance the interests of justice by ensuring a timely resolution while safeguarding the petitioner's rights to export manufactured goods within legal boundaries.In conclusion, the court's decision focused on procedural fairness, urging the department to finalize its investigation promptly and issue a conclusive order. The judgment aimed to mitigate potential losses to the petitioner while upholding the legal framework governing EOU permissions and export activities.