Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2015 (8) TMI 1223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n licence. 2. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the Port Authority took the stand that the petitioner submitted 26 bills of entry and not 28 bills of entry as claimed in the writ petition. It is specifically pointed out therein that there is a duplication of two bills of entry, which is not permissible under the law. It is discern from the statements disclosed in the opposition that 12 bills of entry out of 26 bills of entry are shown as 'out of charge' meaning thereby the goods have already been given clearance by the department. Out of the balance 14 bills of entry, 8 such bills of entry have already been assessed and the clearance under the licence has been allowed by the department. So far as these bills of entry are concerned, the petitioner has not paid the duty in respect of 2 bills of entry and so far as the 4 bills of entry are concerned, a query is raised by the department but no replies have been given by the petitioner. So far as the 8 bills of entry for which assessment and clearance has already been given, it is stated that in terms of the procedures laid down by the Central Port of Excise and Customs, the goods are required to be presented before the Appraisal Of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....writ petition, there is no reason for non-clearance of the imported goods and says that this Court may direct the Port Authorities to clear the goods upon payment of the duty as assessed by the Port Authorities. He further submits that the queries raised by the department has been replied by his client and no further communication is made in this regard and, therefore, the action of the authorities in not permitting the petitioner to have the imported goods cleared upon payment of the duty is illegal, improper and abuse of the power. He thus submits that the Court can take into consideration all the subsequent events in order to mould the relief when the original relief becomes inappropriate. 6. In support of his contention Mr. Mitra, relies upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gaiv Dinshaw Irani & Ors. v. Tehmtan Irani & Ors. reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 294. He strongly submits that the order of seizure came into existence during the pendency of the writ petition which is illegal, infirm and not in accordance with law. He concludes by saying that the order of seizure is otherwise illegal and not maintainable and is liable to be qua....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e clauses (j) and (o) of Section 111 of the Customs Act which reads thus :- Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 111.(j) any dutiable or prohibited goods removed or attempted to be removed from a Customs area or a warehouse without the permission of the proper officer or contrary to the terms of such permission; 111.(o) any goods exempted, subject to any condition, from duty or any prohibition in respect of the import thereof under this Act or any other law for the time being inforce, in respect of which the condition is not observed unless the non-observance of the condition was sanctioned by the proper officer. 11. The meaningful reading of the aforesaid clauses show that the goods are liable to confiscation if it is removed or attempted to be removed from the Customs or the from the warehouse without the permission of the proper officer if such goods attract duty or goods within the definition of the prohibited goods. The goods are further liable to confiscation if those are exempted from duty on certain conditions and such conditions have not been observed or if there is any prohibition in respect of an import under the Customs Act or any other law for the ti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when challenge is made to an order of seizure should not interfere but relegate the party to the authorities who is otherwise competent to take a decision. 16. In the case of Madanlal Steel Industries Limited (supra), the goods were imported for human consumption and a bill of entry was filed before the officer who after necessary examination assessed the duty and a part of the cargo was cleared and was stored in the warehouse. The office of the Director of Revenue and Intelligence made a surprise inspection and seized two containers kept in the warehouse and issued the seizure warrant. A challenge is made to the order of seizure before the Madras High Court as well as the show cause notice issued upon the importer. A point was taken that before the notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act could be issued whether the action of the authorities in seizing the goods is capable of being assailed before the High Court in a writ petition. In the above backdrop of the fact, it is held that the power of judicial review should not be exercised when the authority is capable of determining the di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the applicability of Section 123 is not satisfied. There is no force in the contention. The goods were seized under Section 110(1) of the Act by the proper officer on the ground that he had reason to believe that the goods in dispute were liable to be confiscated under the Act. The seizure when made was in accordance with law and no fault could be found with the same. When the goods are seized under Section 110(1) of the Act that amounts to seizure of the goods under the Act and one of the conditions for invoking the provisions of Section 123 of the Act are satisfied by the mere factum of seizure. The effect of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 110(2) would only be that the seized goods are returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. It would not render the initial seizure of the goods illegal. We, therefore, hold that the seizure of the goods under Section 110(1) by itself is sufficient to comply with the requisite condition under Section 123 of the Act. What happens to the goods thereafter is of no consequence. 18. In a subsequent judgment rendered in Union of India v. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Act,....