Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S.Sonak, Jitendra Jain
Purple Products Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 36 , 46) |
| 2. court establishes ratio on treaty enforceability. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 3. court dismisses petitioners' arguments on jurisdiction. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 4. court dismisses petitions and vacates interim orders. (Para 63 , 64) |
JUDGMENT :
(Per M. S. Sonak, J.)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent, the matters are taken up for final disposal. Since there is no clarity on the Rule, we formally issue the Rule, and with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, make it returnable immediately.
2. By judgment and order dated July 9, 2019, these Petitions, along with two others, were dismissed, relegating the Petitioners to respond to the impugned show cause notices and participate in the proceedings initiated.
3. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2491 of 2018 (Kothari Metals Ltd) and Writ Petition No. 2831 of 2018 (Purple Products Pvt Ltd) challenged the order dated 9 July 2019 vide Civil Appeal Nos. 9010 of 2019 and 3011 of 2019. By a common
International treaty provisions must be incorporated into domestic law to be enforceable; Customs Authorities retain jurisdiction under the Customs Act to issue show cause notices.
The court established that interest claims do not fall under the penalty provisions of the FT Act, thus cannot be adjudicated by the authority designated under the Act.
Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 requires a part of the cause of action to arise within the jurisdiction; mere apprehension of harm does not suffice.
No requirement in the Act or Rules, nor do the principles of natural justice and fair play require that the witnesses whose statements were recorded and relied upon to issue the show-cause notice, ar....
The apprehension of business harm does not establish territorial jurisdiction for a writ petition; actual adverse impacts must be connected to the legal grounds of the claim.
The authority of the DGFT in determining fulfillment of export obligations prevails over Customs demands, which cannot contradict DGFT’s issued certificates.
The court ruled that interest and penalties under the Customs Tariff Act were not applicable prior to the amendment of Section 3(12), which is prospective in nature.
The court ruled that interest and penalties on IGST under the Customs Tariff Act cannot be levied without explicit statutory authority, reaffirming the principle of judicial discipline in following j....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
