9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported jute frames under Customs Act, 1962. 2. Importation of second-hand machinery for 100% export-oriented unit. 3. Refusal of Customs authorities to clear imported goods. 4. Confiscation order by Collector of Customs and subsequent legal proceedings. 5. Government's relaxation of import policy and subsequent actions by Collector of Customs. 6. Allegations of mala fide actions and bias by Collector of Customs. 7. National interest and public policy considerations in the case. Analysis: 1. The judgment concerns a Writ Application against the confiscation of two jute frames imported for a 100% export-oriented unit under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Collector of Customs had confiscated the goods alleging unauthorized importation. 2. The petitioner had imported second-hand machinery for its export unit, seeking to increase production for export purposes. The Ministry of Industry had relaxed import policy requirements for the petitioner based on the unit's export-oriented nature and the potential for increased foreign exchange earnings. 3. Customs authorities initially refused to clear the imported goods, citing policy restrictions on machinery age. The petitioner faced demurrage costs and eventual confiscation of the goods by the Collector of Customs, who offered redemption on payment of fines. 4. Legal proceedings ensued, with the petitioner challenging the confiscation order and seeking relief. The High Court set aside the initial confiscation order and directed a fresh hearing by the Collector of Customs considering the government's relaxation of import policy. 5. Despite the government's relaxation order, the Collector of Customs reiterated the confiscation, arguing that the importation preceded the relaxation decision. The petitioner alleged mala fide intentions and bias on the part of the Collector, emphasizing the lawful intent behind the importation for national interest. 6. The Court, considering the unique circumstances of the case and the petitioner's role in earning foreign exchange through exports, found merit in the petitioner's arguments. It viewed the Collector's actions as detrimental to the purpose of importation and production for export, leading to a national loss. 7. In the interest of public welfare and considering the petitioner's strong prima facie case, the Court issued a rule in favor of the petitioner, directing the clearance of the imported machines without levying customs duties or fines. It also stayed the operation of the Collector's confiscation order, emphasizing the importance of public interest in the matter.
|
