2022 (3) TMI 60 - SC - Customs

Applicability of N/N. 38 of 2002-Cus (N.T.) dated 13th June 2002 - imported goods consisting of 1647.414 metric tonnes of crude palmolein - whether the claim of the present respondent which was admittedly not lodged before the Resolution Professional after public notices were issued under Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC could be considered at this stage? - HELD THAT - Admittedly the claim in respect of the demand which is the subject matter of the present proceedings was not lodged by the respondent no. 2 after public announcements were issued under Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC. As such on the date on which the Resolution Plan was approved by the learned NCLT all claims stood frozen and no claim which is not a part of the Resolution Plan would survive. In that view of the matter the appeals deserve to be allowed only on this ground. It is held that the claim of the respondent which is not part of the Resolution Plan does not survive. The amount deposited by the appellant at the time of admission of the appeals along with interest accrued thereon is directed to be refunded to the appellant. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment of High Court on writ petitions regarding customs notification applicability. Consideration of claim not lodged before Resolution Professional under IBC.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard appeals challenging a High Court judgment dismissing writ petitions related to the applicability of a customs notification to imported goods. The petitions sought mandamus regarding the notification's impact on imported crude palmolein. The appeals were filed after the writ petitions were rejected. Additionally, an application was filed to highlight subsequent developments and appeal disposal.

During the proceedings, it was revealed that the Standard Chartered Bank initiated insolvency proceedings against the appellant under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Resolution Professional filed for approval of the Resolution Plan, which was granted, transferring management to the successful Resolution Applicant. The key issue was whether a claim not lodged before the Resolution Professional post-public notices under the IBC could be considered.

Arguments were presented by counsels for the appellant and respondent. The appellant's counsel cited a previous case to support that claims not part of the Resolution Plan cannot be entertained. The respondent's counsel argued confusion regarding the claim and lack of notice to the Authority at Mangalore.

The Court referred to a previous judgment, stating that claims not part of the Resolution Plan are extinguished upon approval. As the respondent did not lodge a claim for the subject matter of the proceedings after public notices, such claims do not survive. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, directing the refund of the deposited amount with interest. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.