1989 (6) TMI 67 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Seizure and control of goods by Customs Authorities.
2. Restraint on petitioners from removing or utilizing goods.
3. Legality of import without an industrial license.
4. Applicability of concessional customs duty rates.
5. Validity of the Collector of Customs' order releasing goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Seizure and Control of Goods by Customs Authorities:

The application filed by M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. sought orders directing the Customs Authorities to seize goods that were allegedly cleared illegally by the petitioners. The court initially restrained the petitioners from removing the goods from Bombay Port or clearing them from the Customs Authorities. If the goods had already been removed, they were to be taken into possession by the Bombay Customs Authorities and placed in joint custody.

2. Restraint on Petitioners from Removing or Utilizing Goods:

The petitioners were also restrained from utilizing or disposing of the goods in any manner. The court was asked to take appropriate action against the petitioners and the customs authorities for violating the court's orders. The petitioners filed a reply seeking to vacate the stay and dismiss the application by respondent No. 4.

3. Legality of Import Without an Industrial License:

Respondent No. 4 contended that under Section 29-B of the Industrial Development and Regulation Act, the petitioners could not import or manufacture the goods without an industrial license. Petitioners did not hold such a license for Graphic art films and X-Ray films (Medical and Industrial), making the import illegal. The Additional Solicitor General of India supported this contention, stating that the import was illegal as the petitioners did not hold the necessary licenses.

4. Applicability of Concessional Customs Duty Rates:

The petitioners had initially sought to clear the goods at a concessional rate of duty under notifications dated July 7, 1988, and September 16, 1988. Various interim orders allowed this, but these orders were set aside by the Division Bench, which observed that no order for the release of the goods should be passed until the writ petition was disposed of. The petitioners later acquired additional licenses and cleared the goods on payment of full customs duty.

5. Validity of the Collector of Customs' Order Releasing Goods:

The petitioners argued that they cleared the goods independently of the writ petition, based on additional licenses and payment of full customs duty, as per paragraphs 215 and 216 of the Import and Export Policy, 1988-1991. The court noted that the order of release by the Collector of Customs was independent of the writ petition and outside its scope. The legality of the Collector's order was not for the court to decide in this writ petition.

Conclusion:

The court found that the present application by respondent No. 4 was not maintainable and dismissed it, vacating the order dated June 9, 1989. The court did not find any reason to suspend the order pronounced. The primary issue in the writ petition was the grant of a COB license for the petitioners' industrial activities, and the release of goods on full customs duty was outside the scope of the writ petition.