2003 (12) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing on business of manufacturing leather goods meant for marketing and selling in indigenous market as well as for supply to the exporters, who are also carrying on business within Special Economic Zone. The petitioners are not the exporters, but by virtue of their supplies of the finished leather goods to the exporters within the Special Economic Zone, they are entitled to get the facility of duty draw-back, treating their sale as aforesaid to be deemed export. Such duty draw-back facility is allowable under the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act. The petitioners of course have received, and may be receiving in future draw-backs in connection with supply of their goods to the aforesaid exporters. Therefore, accord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication. Besides, the petitioners are treated to be deemed exporters under the different Act and the officers appointed under the said Act are controlled by the Ministry of Commerce and they can make an enquiry into the draw-back duty payable to the petitioners under the aforesaid Act. The officials of the Customs authority have no jurisdiction to do so, as such, he submits, that the summons, search and seizure and enquiry into the draw-back received or receivable by the petitioners from its suppliers at Special Economic Zone under the provisions of the aforesaid Act shall be stayed. 4. He contends that the said Company to which supply have been effected by the petitioners at Special Economic Zone at Falta is different and separate entit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd seizure should not be halted as this is absolutely a beginning of this proceeding. It is an admitted position that the writ petitioners are alleged to have supplied their products to the said Ltd. Company, which is in reality same organization, as the directors therein are also the partners of the petitioner No. 1. 8. Having heard the respective contention of the learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the materials produced by the respondents I thought at the first blush the argument of Mr. Mullick is quite convincing. It is true the Pvt. Ltd. Company is a separate and distinct legal entity, but the Court in certain circumstances will certainly lift the corporate veil to understand who are the real men behind the show. ....