TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (4) TMI 118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayment of duty with an obligation to export. Under Export-Import Policy, the licensing authority, namely the first respondent is the authority vested with the power of monitoring and to enforce the conditions of the licence under Sections 8, 9 and 11 of the Foreign Trade Act. It is the assertion of the petitioner that even though the second respondent has no jurisdiction in the matter, he is continuously harassing the petitioner by issuing notice for personal appearance. It has been asserted that the action of the second respondent in issuing notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is illegal and without jurisdiction. It has been further stated that Section 108 of the Customs Act can be invoked in connection with smuggling of any goods and in the absence of any smuggling of goods, violation or contravention in the matter relating to export or import can be dealt with by the first respondent and not by the second respondent. On these grounds, the notice issued by the second respondent has to be quashed. 3.The allegations in the connected writ petitions are similar. 4.A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent refuting the contentions raised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the respondents writ petition was not maintainable as being premature. It was the respondents case that the Chief of the Army Staff had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notice after he had been again found not guilty by the court-marital on revision. The said notice expressly stated that the Chief of the Army Staff was of the opinion that the respondents misconduct as disclosed in the proceedings rendered his further retention in service undesirable and asked him to submit his explanation and defence, if any, to the charges made against him. If the respondent's contention with respect to the jurisdiction of the Chief of the Army Staff to issue the said notice were correct, the respondent was certainly exposed to the jeopardy of having his explanation and defence rejected and he being removed or dismissed from services. Were the said notice issued without jurisdiction, the respondent would have then suffered a grave, prejudicial injury by an act which was without jurisdiction. Where the threat of a prejudicial action is wholly without jurisdiction, a person cannot be asked to wait for the injury to be caused to him before seeking the Courts protection. If, on the ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orate of Revenue Intelligence as officers of customs. Such notification has been issued in exercise of the power conferred under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the Senior Intelligence Officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence is also a gazetted officer of customs. Incidentally it may be pointed out that there is no denial that the Senior Intelligence Officer is a gazetted officer, but the only dispute is whether the Senior Intelligence Officer of the DRI has been notified to be an officer of customs as envisaged under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act. In such view of the matter, the first contention raised by the learned Counsels appearing for the petitioner in all the cases must fail. 14.The second contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is to the effect that the import and export by the persons availing advance licence under the duty free scheme is to be monitored by the first respondent as such import and export policy has been framed by the Union Government under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade Act. It has been further submitted that as a matter of fact, some notices have been issued by the respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atainers case. There this Court approved the test based on understanding of trade parlance/common parlance of a particular product. In the case on hand, but for the printing, the aluminium label would serve no purpose and as seen above, it is the printing on the aluminium sheet, which communicates the message to the buyer that makes the sheet as a label, unlike a carton printed or plain which always remained a carton. The label announces to the customer that10. the product is or is not of his choice and his purchase of the commodity would be decided by the printed matter on the label. The printing of the label is not incidental to its use but primary in the sense that it communicates to the customer about the product and this serves a definite purpose. This Court in Rollatainers case held that what is exempt under the notification is the product of the printing industry. The product in this case is the carton. The printing industry by itself cannot bring the carton into existence. Let us apply this above formula to the facts of this case. the product in this case is the aluminium printed label. The printing industry has brought the label into existence. That being the position a....