SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 593

2003(4) Supreme 435
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Custom Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta)
M.B. Shah & Arun Kumar, JJ.
Commissioner of Customs, Kolkatta -Appellant
versus
M/s. Grand Prime Limited & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4151-4157 of 2001
Decided on 7-7-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mukul Rohatgi, Additional Soliciter General, N.K. Bajpai, A. Subba Rao, Hemant Sharma and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Dr. Rajeev Dhawan and ATM Ramaranganujam, Sr. Advocates, Sudhir Gupta, R.P. Gupta, Anant Vijai Palli, Mrs. Rekha Palli and K. Shrivraj Choudhuri, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where goods in the restricted test under Import Export Policy were imported under licence subject to condition but there was breach of condition then goods were liable to be confiscated u/s 111(d) of Customs Act.

Headnote:Customs Act, 1962-Section 111 (d) and (o)-Import of raw silk, a restricted item against an advance licence-Import was free of duty subject to condition that imported goods after conversion had to be exported-Non-export of goods-Commissioner passed order for confiscation of goods and imposed penalties-Order set aside by Tribunal which allowed re-export of goods and set aside penalties relying upon Dugar s case-Appeal-Import was clearly contrary to law being without a valid licence and in contravention of condition/restriction imposed under licence-Order of confiscation of goods passed by Commissioner of customs was in accordance with law-Customs Act did not contain any provision regarding re-export of goods-Considerations under Sale of Goods Act could not be applied where import was illegal-Impugned order was liable to be set aside.

       Held : The goods in question are in the restricted list under the Import-Export Policy for the relevant period. The import of the goods in question is permitted only against a licence. The licence is granted subject to the condition of re-export of goods. The importer had failed to comply with the condition of re-export of finished or semi-finished goods, qua, the imports already made under the same licence. When the consignments in question were imported, the importer did not even turn up inspite of notice for fear of action regarding the previous imports and likelihood of action being taken regarding the current imports. No licence was produced and no bill of entry was filed to complete the process of importation. This rendered the import against the prohibition imposed regarding the import. As such Section 111(d) of the Customs Act comes into play. It clearly empowers confiscation of the goods. The action of the Department in confiscating the goods was clearly in accordance with law. (Para 6)

       

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar, J.-These appeals are directed against the order of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) dated 20th November, 2000. By the impugned order the Tribunal allowed re-export of the three consignments of tussah silk and one consignment of silk fabric having a total value of Rs. 45,85,291/-. The Tribunal further set aside the penalties imposed on individuals by the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkatta. The individuals had filed appeals before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs and the Tribunal allowed the same. Hence these appeals by the Department.

2. Briefly the facts are that M/s. Olympia Exports of New Delhi through its proprietor Shri Mahesh Chowhan imported the goods in question from Hong Kong purportedly against an advance licence. The goods in question fall within list of restricted items import whereof is permitted subject to certain conditions. The importer had obtained an advance licence in July, 1997. Against the said licence the importer had imported and cleared five consignments of raw silk through the Kolkatta port free of duty subject to the condition that the imported goods after conversion had to be re-exported. Intelligence was gathered by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkatta to the effect that M/s. Olympia Exports based in New Delhi had imported and cleared five consignments of raw silk against a fraudulently obtained advance licence and had sold the said imported silk in the open market without discharging the export obligation. Thus they had violated the provisions of the revenue exemption notification and the export-import policy. Further intelligence was gathered to the effect that the same importer had again imported two consignments of silk fabric and tussah silk through Kolkatta port and the said consignments were awaiting clearance. It appears that while the investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkatta was going on, the importer got a wind of it and therefore it never turned up to get the goods under the aforesaid two consignments released. According to the revenue the advance licence obtained by the importer was forged. Summons under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 were repeatedly issued to M/s. Olympia Exports and Shri Mahesh Chowhan, proprietor of M/s. Olympia Exports, New Delhi to appear before the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The summons could not be served on either M/s. Olympia Exports or Shri Mahesh Chowhan and they never appeared in response to the summons. Summons were also issued to various other parties involved in the previous transaction of import of five consignments which had been cleared through customs. They appeared in response to the summons and their statements were recorded. Ultimately a demand-cum-show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 28 of the said Act was issued on 14th May, 1999 to M/s. Olympia Exports, New Delhi, Shri Mahesh Chowhan and others. So far as the consignment, subject matter of the present appeals is concerned, the show cause notice called upon the noticees to show cause why goods subject matter of the two consignments, should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalties should not be imposed. The importer did not respond to the show cause notice. Instead M/s. Grand Prime Limited respondent No. 1 addressed a communication dated 27th May, 1999 to the Commissioner of Customs stating that they had exported the goods subject matter of the two consignments. In the letter respondent No. 1 stated that it had failed to locate that exporter. It was further stated that efforts were made to find an alternative purchaser for the goods which it had failed to arrange. Request was made to the Commissioner to grant permission to re-ship/re-export the goods comprising the said consignments. An advocate named Shri Om Prakash Chowdhary
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top