1990 (6) TMI 74 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Antedated Bill of Lading and fraudulent actions.
2. Confiscation of goods and penal action by Customs Authorities.
3. Revalidation of advance license and circular dated February 15, 1989.
4. Controller of Imports and Exports declining revalidation.
5. Petitioner's claims and arguments in Writ Petitions.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Antedated Bill of Lading and fraudulent actions
The petitioner held an advance license valid till November 30, 1988, and imported Mulberry Raw Silk from Hong Kong. The Bill of Lading presented for duty-free clearance was dated November 30, 1988, the same day the license expired. Customs Authorities suspected the Bill of Lading was antedated to match the license validity. Upon investigation, it was confirmed that the goods were loaded on December 6, 1988, and the Bill of Lading was antedated to ensure clearance within the license validity. The Customs Authorities issued a show cause notice for producing forged documents, leading to confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.

Issue 2: Confiscation of goods and penal action by Customs Authorities
The Customs Authorities, after verifying with steamer agents, found the Bill of Lading to be antedated. The Additional Collector of Customs rejected the petitioner's claim of innocence, confiscated the goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, and imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs with an additional penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. The Assistant Collector offered the petitioner an option to pay the fine and clear the goods. The Court upheld the Customs Authorities' actions, stating that reliance on forged documents warrants no sympathy, and the petitioner's actions were dishonest.

Issue 3: Revalidation of advance license and circular dated February 15, 1989
The petitioner applied for revalidation of the expired advance license based on a circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce on February 15, 1989. The circular allowed revalidation for licenses expired between April 1, 1988, and January 1, 1989, considering factors like export proportionality and efforts made in importing within the license validity period. However, the revalidation request was denied, leading to a writ petition challenging this decision.

Issue 4: Controller of Imports and Exports declining revalidation
The Controller of Imports and Exports declined the revalidation without providing reasons in a letter dated June 30, 1989. The petitioner's counsel argued that the denial was unjustified, as revalidation is usually granted routinely. The Court disagreed, stating that the petitioner's involvement in fraudulent activities, including obtaining an antedated Bill of Lading, justified the denial of revalidation. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim and dismissed the writ petition.

Issue 5: Petitioner's claims and arguments in Writ Petitions
The petitioner's counsel argued against the Customs Authorities' assumption of the Bill of Lading being antedated and the Controller of Imports and Exports' refusal to revalidate the license. However, the Court found the petitioner's claims frivolous and upheld the decisions of the Authorities. The Court emphasized that engaging in fraudulent actions to take advantage of forged documents does not warrant any leniency.

In conclusion, the High Court summarily dismissed both petitions, upholding the actions of the Customs Authorities and the Controller of Imports and Exports. The Court found the petitioner's conduct fraudulent and upheld the confiscation of goods and denial of revalidation based on the petitioner's involvement in obtaining an antedated Bill of Lading.