1987 (2) TMI 70 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to a notice issued under Section 11(1) of the Customs Act regarding the storage of imported goods.
2. Dispute over the delay in obtaining a notified number for the imported goods.
3. Authority of Customs authorities to investigate the correctness of an import license granted by the Controller of Imports and Exports.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a sole proprietor of a merchant exporting enterprise, imported goods under an import license without payment of Customs duty. The goods were stored in a godown after clearance, but a notified number was not applied for due to the clerk's inadvertence. Subsequently, the goods were seized, and a notice under Section 11(1) of the Customs Act was issued. The court found no justification for the action taken by the Customs authorities, as the goods were imported openly under a valid import license granted by the competent authority.

2. The petitioner acknowledged a delay of 6 days in obtaining the notified number, attributing it to the clearing agent's clerk's oversight. Despite the delay, the court noted that the circumstances leading to the delay were convincingly explained in the petition and not contested during oral arguments. The court deemed the delay reasonable given the inadvertent nature of the omission and the prompt action taken by the petitioner upon realization.

3. The Customs authorities sought to investigate whether the petitioner was an actual user of the imported goods, questioning the validity of the import license. However, the court dismissed this contention, emphasizing that the Customs authorities lacked the legal authority to scrutinize the correctness of an import license granted by the Controller of Imports and Exports. The court deemed such an investigation unjustifiable, especially when the import license had been issued by a competent authority after due consideration.

In conclusion, the court rejected the Customs authorities' actions, admitted the petition, and granted interim relief to the petitioner, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to take delivery of the consignment. The court set a returnable date for further proceedings and warned of potential contempt of court consequences for non-compliance with the interim relief order.