9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to legality of a notice issued by Deputy Collector of Customs regarding alleged evasion of import duty and misdeclaration of imported equipment. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order dismissing the writ petition challenging a notice issued by the Deputy Collector of Customs. The notice alleged that the company imported equipment exceeding the permitted capacity, leading to evasion of import duty. The company contended that the import was done in accordance with the licenses and clearance procedures under the Customs Act. The notice invoked Sections 111(d), (l), and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Import and Export Control Act, 1947. The company requested inspection of bills of entry to show compliance with import licenses, but only partial inspection was provided. The company argued that once goods are cleared by the proper officer under Section 47 of the Customs Act, it cannot be challenged later. The legal issue was whether goods cleared under Section 47 can be subject to action under Section 111 of the Customs Act. Referring to precedents, the Single Judge held that provisional assessment under Project Contract Regulations does not preclude subsequent action. The appeal contended lack of jurisdiction in issuing the notice, while the respondents argued that the notice was valid under Section 143 of the Customs Act and Project Imports Regulations. The installed capacity exceeding the licensed capacity was a basis for the notice, alleging unauthorized import of additional machinery. The Court found the notice to be within jurisdiction and upheld the dismissal of the petition. The judgment distinguished the case from precedents where goods were cleared under different sections of the Customs Act. The Court concluded that the notice was valid and dismissed the appeal, granting time to respond to the show cause notice until a specified date.
|
