9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1351 - HC - CustomsPre-export restrictions/obligations sought to be imposed by the 1st and 2nd respondents - Illegal mining - paramount contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is based on Sec.2(33) of the Customs Act 1962 - whether Exts.P2 and P3 issued by respondents 1 and 2 are in accordance with law and in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act and the Foreign Trade Policy? Held that - Even though various contentions are raised by the petitioner by producing documents along with the reply affidavits as well as additional affidavits they are not transforming themselves into pleadings since no amendment is made to the writ petition and the reliefs sought for against the respondents are based on alleged illegality in Exts.P2 and P3 - It is also made clear that no reliefs are sought for by the petitioner against the action of the Government of Tamil Nadu issuing various orders stopping the mining operations transportation etc. etc. If the intention of the Parliament was only the law relating to export as specified above it should have been made specific in the Customs Act. Having not done so and taking into account the provisions of MMDR Act 1957 it is patent and clear a harmonious and coordinated action is envisioned in the matter of providing mining lease despite the fact that the Central Government is vested with powers for making Rules - It is also clear from the provisions thereunder the entire operations are regulated controlled and managed by the State Government. Apart from the same a harmonious relationship is existing by and between the Union and the States in accordance with the Federal principles. There is mutual respect for the laws made by the Central as well as the State Governments unless there is clear transgression in the area of legislation as contemplated under the Constitution of India. Moreover the insistence made by the Customs officers is not with respect to garnet as is sought to be exported by the petitioner. The Customs Authorities have issued Exts.P2 and P3 in accordance with the powers conferred on them under the Customs Act the notifications issued by the Government of India specified above under the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 read along with Sec.5 of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act. There is no case made out by the petitioner justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India there being no illegality arbitrariness or unfairness on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in issuing Exts.P2 and P3 - however it is made clear that if the petitioner is able to produce the necessary documents as is required in Exts.P2 and P3 it is for the Customs Authorities to consider the same in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Customs Authorities to impose pre-export restrictions and obligations. 2. Compliance with the Customs Act, Foreign Trade Policy, and Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act. 3. Legality of the actions taken by the State of Tamil Nadu regarding mining operations and transport permits. 4. Validity of the requirement for transport permits for export. 5. Territorial jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Customs Authorities to impose pre-export restrictions and obligations: The petitioner challenged the pre-export restrictions and obligations imposed by the Customs Authorities (respondents 1 and 2) based on communications from the District Collector, Tirunelveli (respondent 3). The petitioner argued that these restrictions were without jurisdiction and prejudicial to international trade. The court examined the Customs Act, 1962, and the Foreign Trade Policy, concluding that the Customs Authorities have the power to impose such restrictions to ensure compliance with the law. 2. Compliance with the Customs Act, Foreign Trade Policy, and Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act: The petitioner contended that the export of goods is governed solely by the Customs Act and the Foreign Trade Policy, and that no additional documents, such as transport permits, are required. The court, however, found that the Customs Act incorporates other prohibitory laws, including the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), and the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011. The court held that the Customs Authorities acted within their powers in requiring the petitioner to produce transport permits and other documents to verify the legality of the minerals being exported. 3. Legality of the actions taken by the State of Tamil Nadu regarding mining operations and transport permits: The petitioner argued that the actions of the State of Tamil Nadu, including the stoppage of mining operations and the requirement for transport permits, were illegal. The court noted that the State Government had the authority to regulate mining operations and issue transport permits under the MMDR Act and the Tamil Nadu Rules, 2011. The court found that the State's actions were lawful and aimed at preventing illegal mining and transportation of minerals. 4. Validity of the requirement for transport permits for export: The petitioner claimed that there was no legal requirement for transport permits for export. The court, however, found that the requirement for transport permits was valid under the MMDR Act and the Tamil Nadu Rules, 2011. The court held that the Customs Authorities were justified in requiring the petitioner to produce transport permits to ensure the legality of the minerals being exported. 5. Territorial jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court: The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable before the Kerala High Court, as the cause of action arose in Tamil Nadu. The court agreed, noting that the actions challenged by the petitioner were taken by authorities in Tamil Nadu, and the Kerala High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate on these matters. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the actions of the Customs Authorities and the State of Tamil Nadu. The court found no illegality, arbitrariness, or unfairness in the issuance of the impugned communications (Exts.P2 and P3) by the Customs Authorities. The court also clarified that the petitioner could produce the necessary documents to the Customs Authorities for consideration in accordance with the law. All other questions of fact and law concerning the actions of the State of Tamil Nadu were left open, as they were outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court.
|
