9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 295 - HC - CustomsSeizure of goods - Jurisdiction - power of Investigating Officer under the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - It is unfortunate that despite a clear enunciation and pronouncement of the law on the aspect of Proper Officer under Section 110 of the Customs Act, the concerned officials of the Respondents are repeatedly seizing goods without having the authority and jurisdiction to do so. Perhaps, the judgment in M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT , has not been either read by the concerned officials or has not been understood in the correct perspective. As a result, this Court is flooded with litigation on the same issue and we cannot help but observe that it is the action of the Respondents in not applying the binding dicta of the Hon ble Supreme Court, which is breeding unnecessary litigation. It is directed that the Registry of this Court to send a copy of the judgment dated 09.03.2021, passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Canon India to the Respondents herein, through electronic mode, so that corrective measures and steps are taken, in accordance with the judgment and citizens are not put to mental and financial harassment by filing petitions before this Court. List on 29.10.2021.
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding seizure of goods by the 'Proper Officer'. 2. Compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canon India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs. 3. Corrective measures to prevent unnecessary litigation due to non-compliance with legal pronouncements. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, specifically focusing on the term 'Proper Officer' responsible for seizing goods. The Petitioner argued that the Investigating Officer of DRI, not being a Customs Officer, lacked the authority to seize goods under the said Act. Citing the judgment in Canon India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, the Petitioner contended that the Respondents were acting contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Petitioner sought relief through a writ petition to quash the seizure made by the Respondents and to release the goods seized. 2. The Court expressed disappointment over the repeated seizure of goods by officials without proper authority, despite the clear legal position established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Canon India case. The Court observed that the Respondents' failure to adhere to the legal precedent was leading to unnecessary litigation. Consequently, the Court directed the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Respondents electronically for corrective action. Additionally, the Principal Commissioner of Customs was instructed to circulate the judgment among all concerned officials for compliance. The Court emphasized that judgments of the Courts are binding on Government officials, necessitating adherence to legal pronouncements to avoid citizen harassment and litigation. 3. In order to prevent further non-compliance and to ensure understanding and implementation of legal judgments, the Court directed Respondents No. 1 and 2 to organize a meeting with relevant officers. The purpose of the meeting was to sensitize the officials regarding the implementation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions in the Canon India case and to emphasize the binding nature of court judgments. The Court listed the matter for further proceedings on a specified date, indicating its expectation of compliance and proactive measures to prevent future instances of non-compliance leading to unnecessary litigation.
|
