2017 (9) TMI 599 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - revisional authority - Held that - the entire interpretation based on which, the petitioner has founded his case has totally lost its efficacy and the only conclusion that has arrived at, that the petitioner has not made out a case for interference with the impugned orders. As pointed out earlier, this Court cannot substitute all the findings recorded by the two fact finding authorities and affirmed by a revisional authority - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by 3rd respondent affirming orders of 2nd respondent and 1st respondent regarding deemed exporter status under Exim policy.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order affirming decisions against them by three authorities regarding their deemed exporter status. The High Court clarified that it would not re-examine factual positions like an appellate authority. The petitioner's case relied on being declared a deemed exporter under Exim policy, with an interim injunction obtained in a previous writ petition. The petitioner argued that due to the interim order, certain provisions were suspended, and their activities could not be penalized under the Customs Act. However, the Court noted that the previous writ petition was dismissed, rendering the petitioner's interpretation ineffective. The Court emphasized that it could not replace the findings of the lower authorities. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference with the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the petitioner's legal arguments, the Court's interpretation of relevant provisions, and the ultimate decision based on the facts and legal principles involved in the case.