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

2016 Supreme(MP) 988

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
P.K. Jaiswal, Vivek Rusia, JJ.
All India Steel Re-Rollers Association – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.A. No. 6 of 2016 and W.A. Nos. 496, 637 & 639 of 2015 and Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2016
Decided On : 14-06-2016

Advocates Appeared:
Shri. Deepak Rawal, ASG, Naman Nagarath, SC, Bagadiya, Sr. Advocate, H. Thakur, Prasanna Prasad and V.K. Jain, Advocates.

The impugned Circular cannot be applied retrospectively to the consignment of the petitioner, and the court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition if part of the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction.

Headnote:

Alloy Steel - Customs Clearance - [Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, Bureau of Indian Standards Act] - The court allowed the clearance of Alloy Steel Deformed Bars, challenging the Circular No. 450/176/2014-Cus-IV, dated 7-11-2014, restricting the petitioner from importing Alloy Steel Deformed Bars. The court found that the impugned Circular was not ultra vires the Constitution of India, but it did not prohibit the petitioner from importing the goods. The court held that the Circular cannot be applied retrospectively to the consignment of the petitioner and directed the respondent to allow clearance of the goods covered by commercial invoice dated 4th September, 2014 and consignments of Alloy Steel Deformed Bars lying in the port of Chennai and Mumbai.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Anik Industries Limited, challenged the Circular No. 450/176/2014-Cus-IV, dated 7-11-2014, which restricted the import of Alloy Steel Deformed Bars. The petitioner had placed an order for import of the goods, but the clearance was refused by the Commissioner of Customs, relying on the impugned Circular.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned Circular was not ultra vires the Constitution of India, but it did not prohibit the petitioner from importing the goods. The court held that the Circular cannot be applied retrospectively to the consignment of the petitioner and directed the respondent to allow clearance of the goods covered by commercial invoice dated 4th September, 2014 and consignments of Alloy Steel Deformed Bars lying in the port of Chennai and Mumbai.

Issues: The issues included the constitutionality and legality of the impugned Circular, the jurisdiction of the court, and the applicability of the Circular to the consignment of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned Circular was not ultra vires the Constitution of India, but it cannot be applied retrospectively to the consignment of the petitioner. The court also found that part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, allowing it to entertain the writ petition.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to allow clearance of the goods covered by commercial invoice dated 4th September, 2014 and consignments of Alloy Steel Deformed Bars lying in the port of Chennai and Mumbai.

JUDGMENT :

P.K. Jaiswal, J.

By these intra court appeal, the intervenor of W.P. No. 8501/2014 and the respondents are challenging the order dated 19-10-2015 passed in W.P. No. 8501/2014 and 13-9-2015 passed in W.P. No. 9169/2014 [2015 (325) E.L.T. 860 (M.P.)] whereby the learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition and directed that the Commissioner of Customs (Import) shall allow clearance of goods covered by commercial invoice dated 4-9-2014 and 18-9-2014 and the consignment of Alloy Steel and Deformed Bars also forthwith lying in the ports of Mumbai and Chennai. Para 14 of order dated 13-9-2015 passed in W.P. No. 9169/2014 reads as under :-

"14. Consequently the petition is partly allowed and it is directed that the respondent No. 3 shall allow clearance of the goods covered by commercial invoice dated 4th September, 2014 and consignments of Alloy Steel Deformed Bars also forthwith lying in the port of Chennai. However, it is made clear that this Court is not making any observation regarding the application of the BIS Standards in accordance with the impugned Circular dated 7-11-2014. Even after release of the goods, if the respondent Department is still of the opinion that the consignment is not of the Bureau of Indian Standards, it is free to take action in accordance with the provisions of law and that the petitioner shall co-operate fully with the respondent in the investigation of the same."

and last para of order dated 19-10-2015 passed in W.P. No. 8501/2014 reads as under :-

At the outset, it has been argued before this Court that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30th September, 2015 passed in W.P. No. 9169/2014 (Anik Industries Limited v. The Union of India and others) has allowed the identical writ petition. Following order has been passed by this Court.

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, challenging the Circular No. 450/176/2014-Cus-IV, dated 7-11-2014, restricting the petitioner from importing Alloy Steel Deformed Bars falling under Chapter Heading 7228 of the CTA.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner Anik Industries Limited is a private company, incorporated under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of import of Alloy Steel deformed reinforcement bars. In the course of normal business the petitioner has placed an order for import of the goods Alloy Steel reformed bars as per the contract bearing No. HL1415142-S, dated 24-6-2014, by M/s. Hebei Taigang Iron & Steel Rolling Company Limited, China. The said manufacturer is a registered manufacturer of goods in accordance with the British Standards. The goods were shipped under the Commercial Invoice dated 4-9-2014. The Chinese manufacturer also issued product quality certificate known as MTC. However, the goods were refused clearance by Respondent No. 3 by placing reliance on a circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. Circular No. 450/176/2014-Cus-IV, dated 7-11-2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned Circular") the goods imported by petitioner had arrived in India at the port of Mumbai. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged the fact that this was much before the Steel Products (Quality Control) Second Amendment Order has been made effective. However, respondent No. 3 the Commissioner of Customs disregarded the past practise and refused to clear the goods. Hence, the present petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following grounds challenging the impugned circular dated 7-11-2014. Firstly, Counsel urged that the goods had arrived at the port of Chennai much before the steel products quality control order. The second amendment order has been made after the circular impugned dated 7-11-2014 was in force w.e.f. 4-12-2014. The contract between the parties is dated 24th June, 2014. The schedule of the standing order is

























































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