2001(8) Supreme 279
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
S.P. Bharucha, CJI., Y.K. Sabharwal and Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. -Appellants
versus
M/s. R.C. Fabrics (P.) Ltd. & Anr. etc. -Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 767-768 of 1995
With
Civil Appeal No. 7931 of 1995
And
Civil Appeal No. 7544 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1663/2000)
Decided on 6-11-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, N.K. Bajpai, Mrs. Nisha Bagohi, B.Krishna Prasad, (Anil Kumar Jha, R. P. Wadhwani Hari Shankar,) Advs. (NP), S. Ravindra Bhat, Advocates.
Customs Act, 1962, Section 112 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 11 - Confiscation of goods - High Court directed release the imported goods of the petitioner /respondent No. 1 - First respondent also directed to pay demurrage, container charges etc.- On the basis of such order the importer claimed release of the goods for which purpose writ petition filed - Therefore principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata would not apply - As the High Court allowed the investigation, the case had to be examined on merits to find out whether it was a case of fraud or not, as contended by the department- Therefore, setting aside the judgment and order of the High Court, of the Collector and of the Tribunal, the matter remanded to the Collector for fresh decision on the show cause notice -The order of status quo to continue till the matter is examined afresh by the Collector.[Paras 12 to 17]
JUDGMENT
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-In Civil Appeal Nos. 767-768 of 1995, the challenge of Union of India is to the judgment and order of the High Court whereby allowing the writ petition, the Collector of Customs has been directed to release the imported goods of the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) lying with the Central Warehousing Corporation Limited (for short the Corportion ). It has been further directed that the first respondent will pay demurage, containeer charges and ground rent to the Corporation from the date of storage of the goods till Janury, 15, 1991 whereas the Collector of Customs will pay the said charges on account of storage of these goods from January 16, 1991 till the date of release of the goods.
2. In Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1663 of 2000, the challenge of the Government is to the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appeallate Tribunal which upheld the order of Collector of Custom dated 22nd October, 1993. By the said order, the Collector of Customs directed the discharge of show cause notice dated 18th February, 1991 and had directed that the proceedings be dropped. We grant leave in the special lleave petition.
3. Civil Appeal No. 7931 of 1995 has been filed by the original writ petitioner. The limited challenge therein is to the direction for payment of demurrage, container charges and ground rent by the said petitioner till January 15, 1991. The cntention urged in this appeal is that the said charges are payable by the appellant only upto 21st September, 1990 and not thereafter.
4. This judgment will dispose of all four appeals.
5. We have heard learned Attorney General and also learned counsel for the Corporation. None, however, appered for the importer who is respondent in Civil Appeal Nos. 767-768 of 1995 and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1663 of 2000 and appellant in Civil Appeal No. 7931 of 1995.
6. The importer filed Bill of Entry daed 16th August, 1990 for clearance of consignment declared as 100% Polyester Fabric. On 3rd September, 1990, Custom Authorities conducted examination of 10% of the goods and found some discrepancies with regard to the declared length and weight of the fabric. The importer by its letter dated 4th September, 1990 agreed with that examination and findings and requested the custom authorities not to go in for 100% examination of the goods. The Cutoms Authorities examined another 10% of the goods; on the basis whereof, it calculated average excess in length and weight. It found that total of 843.85 mts. (weight=206.30 kg.) fabric was excess in length. The CIF value of the excess fabric was found to be Rs. 17,003/- (Assessable value Rs. 17,173/-). The importer requested the Assistant Collector of Customs for waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing. On 21st September, 1990, the Assistant Collector passed an order on note-sheet whereby the importer was allowed the release of the excess goods after payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/- and personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The amounts were deposited on 22nd September, 1990 as also customs duty amounting to Rs. 43,657/- on the excess goods. On that day itself, i.e., 22nd September, 1990, DRI Officers visited the CFS Patparganj and detained the consignment on the basis of information available with them. On November 15, 1990, the DRI seized the detained goods.
7. A writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court by the importer seeking directions against the custom authorities for release of consignment of Polyester Fabric imported by it against duty free advance import licence urging that the consignment had been illegally and unauthorisedly detained by the custom authorities. The import was affected by the importer under Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) and duty free advance import licence. Under that licence, the importer was allowed to import d80,000 Mts. of 100% polyester fabrics of CIF value of Rs. 16,16,000/-. One of the condition of importnat was that the importer would export 1
International Airport Authority of India & Ors. v. Grand Slam International & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.