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 an order of debarment passed under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 could be enforced against imports made in 1997 after the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the relevant import policy came into force. (ii) Whether confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained on the basis of that earlier debarment order.
Issue (i): Whether an order of debarment passed under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 could be enforced against imports made in 1997 after the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the relevant import policy came into force.
Analysis: The earlier regime permitted prohibition, licence control, penalty, and prosecution. The later Act repealed the earlier law, saved only existing orders to the extent they were not inconsistent with the new Act, and did not continue the same enforcement mechanism for violations of the old debarment order in the changed import regime. The import policy in force at the time of the disputed imports made the goods freely importable, and there was no continuing statutory basis to treat the 1986 order as independently enforceable so as to prohibit the imports in question.
Conclusion: The earlier debarment order could not be enforced against the 1997 imports.
Issue (ii): Whether confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained on the basis of that earlier debarment order.
Analysis: Confiscation under Section 111(d) applies only where the goods are imported contrary to a prohibition imposed by or under the Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force, and prohibited goods under Section 2(33) are goods whose import is subject to such a prohibition. A quasi-judicial debarment order directed against an importer under the repealed regime was not treated as "law" or an operative prohibition for this purpose after repeal, especially when the later statute and policy did not prohibit the import of the goods and no corresponding enforcement provision survived.
Conclusion: Confiscation under Section 111(d) was not sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The impugned customs action was without jurisdiction and the writ petitions succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: After repeal of the earlier import-control regime, a prior debarment order against an importer cannot by itself furnish a continuing prohibition for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act unless the successor statute or saved provision clearly continues that prohibition and its enforcement.
TaxTMI 
