1984 (11) TMI 317 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Adequate opportunity of hearing.
2. Right to import beef tallow.
3. Competency of authorities under Imports (Control) Order.
4. Jurisdiction of respondent No. 3.
5. Competency to review decisions of the Collector of Customs.
6. Vires of Clause 8 of the Imports (Control) Order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Adequate Opportunity of Hearing:

The petitioners contended that they were not given adequate opportunity of hearing as the order of the Collector of Customs and other relevant files were not made available for inspection. The court found merit in this contention and offered the petitioners a fresh hearing by respondent No. 3. However, the petitioners' counsel requested a final decision on merits, arguing that impartial justice was unlikely in a rehearing. The court agreed to hear the case on merits.

2. Right to Import Beef Tallow:

The Company argued that it had the right to import beef tallow, which was an OGL item during the relevant import policy period. The court noted that the import policy for April 1982 to March 1983 stated that REP licences held by Export Houses would cease to be valid for importing items that were OGL during 1981-82 but were no longer so. Since beef tallow ceased to be an OGL item from June 5, 1981, its import was unauthorized. The court agreed with the Joint Chief Controller's finding that the import at Calcutta was unauthorized.

3. Competency of Authorities under Imports (Control) Order:

The petitioners challenged the competency of the authorities under the Imports (Control) Order to reopen the matter after the goods were cleared by the Collector of Customs. The court held that the authorities under the Imports (Control) Order had independent jurisdiction to determine breaches of laws relating to customs or imports and exports.

4. Jurisdiction of Respondent No. 3:

The petitioners argued that once the Collector had cleared the goods, his order could not be reviewed by the authorities under the Imports (Control) Order. The court overruled this objection, stating that the authorities under the Imports (Control) Order had the jurisdiction to determine breaches of laws relating to customs or imports and exports.

5. Competency to Review Decisions of the Collector of Customs:

The court examined whether the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports could review the decision of the Collector of Customs. The court concluded that once the Collector had cleared the goods, implying no violation of the Imports (Control) Order, the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports or any subordinate authority would not be competent to review the matter and pass a contrary order.

6. Vires of Clause 8 of the Imports (Control) Order:

The petitioners also sought to challenge the vires of Clause 8 on the grounds that it conferred unbridled and uncanalized powers to suspend licences. However, the petitioners' counsel stated that if their jurisdictional objection was upheld, they would not press for a decision on the vires of the clause. Consequently, the court did not address this issue.

Conclusion:

The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The court found that the import of beef tallow at Calcutta was unauthorized, but the authorities under the Imports (Control) Order did not have the jurisdiction to review the decision of the Collector of Customs once the goods were cleared. The parties were left to bear their own costs.