Back
1992 Supreme(Cal) 98
High Court Of Calcutta
SUBHAS CHANDRA SEN
HOWRAH INDL.ESTATE BONDED WAREHOUSE - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - Respondent
Civil Order 9653 (W) Of 1986
Decided On : 03/02/1992
D.K.Sami, GOUTAM CHAKRABORTY, P.K.Dutta
The Central Government cannot modify or curtail the statutory powers of customs officers, including the Assistant Collector of Customs, through executive instructions.
Headnote:
CUSTOMS ACT - Sections 57 and 58 - Appointment and Licensing of Public and Private Bonded Warehouses - Interpretation and Application - Power of Assistant Collector of Customs - Scope of Central Government's Authority - Discrimination between Equally Circumstanced Parties - Legality of Appointment of Public Warehouses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, engaged in the business of running a Public Bonded Warehouse, challenged the decision of the Customs Department not to renew its license. The petitioner's license was initially granted under Section 58 (Private Bonded Warehouse) but was subsequently renewed under Section 57 (Public Bonded Warehouse) due to an administrative error. The Collector of Customs refused to renew the license, citing that the Assistant Collector had no authority to appoint public warehouses under Section 57 and that the petitioner was a private body.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Customs Department's decision not to renew the petitioner's license was based on an erroneous interpretation of the Customs Act. 2. The Assistant Collector of Customs has the statutory power under Section 57 to appoint public warehouses, and the Central Government cannot divest this power through executive instructions. 3. The Central Government's letter dated 7th July 1980 and the subsequent Public Notice did not modify or curtail the statutory jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector under Section 57. 4. The appointment of the Bengal Bonded Warehouse, a private body, as a public warehouse while denying the same to the petitioner constituted discrimination between equally circumstanced parties.
Issues: 1. Whether the Central Government can divest the statutory power of the Assistant Collector under Section 57 of the Customs Act through executive instructions. 2. Whether the appointment of the petitioner as a public warehouse under Section 57 was valid. 3. Whether the denial of renewal of the petitioner's license while allowing the Bengal Bonded Warehouse to continue operating as a public warehouse constituted discrimination.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Customs Act clearly delineates the powers and duties of customs officers, including the Assistant Collector of Customs, and the Central Government cannot interfere with these statutory powers through executive instructions. 2. The appointment of the petitioner as a public warehouse under Section 57 was valid as the Assistant Collector had the statutory authority to make such an appointment. 3. The denial of renewal of the petitioner's license while allowing the Bengal Bonded Warehouse to continue operating as a public warehouse constituted discrimination between equally circumstanced parties, as both were private bodies.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The court directed the Customs Department to consider the petitioner's application for renewal of the license in accordance with law and to take a fresh decision after reviewing all facts and circumstances.
( 1 ) THE petitioner carries on business, inter alia, of running Public Bonded Warehouse since October, 1980. The warehouse is situated at premises No. J-14, Industrial Estate, Balitikuri, Howrah. The warehouse is utilised by importers for storage of imported goods without payment of duty under Section 57 of the Customs Act, 1962.
( 2 ) SECTIONS 57 and 58 are as under:"s. 57. Appointing of public warehouse.- At any warehousing station, the Assistant Collector of Customs may appoint public warehouses wherein dutiable goods may be deposited without payment of duty. S. 58. Licensing of private warehouses.- At any warehousing station, the Assistant Collector of Customs may license Private warehouses wherein dutiable goods imported by or on behalf of the licensee, or any other imported goods in respect of which facilities for deposit in a public warehouse are not available, may be deposited without payment of duty".
( 3 ) WAREHOUSING station has been defined in Section 2 (45) as a place declared as Warehousing station under Section 9. There is no dispute that the place at which the petitioner has been permitted to run a Public Bonded Warehouse is a warehousing sta tion. There appears to be a good deal of confusion as to the true nature of the Public Bonded Warehouse and the Private Bonded Warehouse in the Customs Department itself. The petitioner was granted a licence sometime in 1980 to run a Private Warehouse. The licence was granted in a printed form issued by the Collectorate of Customs. The printed form is under the Heading "licence for Private Bonded Warehouse" and contains the following recitals:-"the undermentioned godown being the property of Mr. /m/s. . . is hereby licensed under section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, as amended, as a Private Bonded Warehouse for storage of. . . . "there is no dispute that the petitioner was granted a licence in that form in 1980. The licence was renewed in 1981 in prescribed form issued by the Collectorate of Customs. The Heading of the form of renewal is "renewal of Licence for Private/public Bonded Warehouse". In the body of the form it is printed". . . issued/appointed U/sec. 57/58 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of Godown/private Warehouse Number. . . ". In the licence of the petitioner, in the Heading, the word "private" was scored out. But in the body of the licence Sec. 58 (1) was scored out. The result was that the petitioner was granted a renewal licence for Public Bonded Warehouse according to the Heading of the Licence whereas in the body of the licence it has been recorded that the petitioner has been appointed under Section 57 of the Customs Act, 1962. This is the result of scoring out of Sec. 58 (1) from the body of the licence. This practice was followed in the years 1982 and 1983. Sometime in 1984 the petitioner was informed that the petitioner's licence had not been renewed for storage of imported goods without payment of duty. Thereupon the petitioner moved a writ petition challenging the decision of the Customs Department.
( 4 ) THE writ petition was disposed of by, inter alia, the following direction :-"it is not necessary for me to go into the dispute as above. Now that the licence has expired, it is for the petitioners to make application for fresh licence and for the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law. If the petitioners have already made an application for fresh licence, that be considered by the respondents in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. If such application has not been made, the petitioners are directed to do that and that be considered by the respondents in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible".
( 5 ) THE petitioner duly applied for extension of licence for the subsequent years. The Assistant Collector of Customs served a notice to the petitioner requiring the show cause why renewal or extension of the licence to operate a Publ
