9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the jurisdiction of Customs Authorities in investigating the utilization of goods imported under a duty exemption scheme, the powers of the Controller of Imports and Exports, and the authority to demand payment of customs duty. Details of the Judgment: 1. Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities: The petitioner claimed that under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Scheme, the Customs Authorities had no jurisdiction to seize goods or investigate their utilization once they have been cleared under a valid Import Licence. The petitioner argued that the rights and obligations arising from advance licenses are exclusively governed by specific provisions and not by the Customs Act. The Court considered whether the grant of injunction and directions issued by the learned Judge were justified. 2. Powers of Controller of Imports and Exports: The licenses issued by the Controller of Imports and Exports are governed by the Import Trade Control Policy and Import Control Order. The Court examined the conditions under which customs duty becomes payable based on the performance of the importer in fulfilling export obligations. Until the Controller decides that customs duty is payable, the Customs Authorities have no jurisdiction to demand payment. 3. Confiscation and Customs Act: The Advocate General argued that under Section 110(o) of the Customs Act, goods can be liable to confiscation if conditions of import are not observed. However, confiscation would only arise after the Controller determines that customs duty is payable. The Court emphasized that Customs Authorities cannot exercise powers under the Customs Act until the Controller makes a decision regarding payment of duty. 4. Precedent and Dismissal of Appeals: Referring to a previous Division Bench decision, the Court held that Customs Authorities lack jurisdiction over goods covered by specific schemes. Citing a case precedent, the Court dismissed the appeals, stating that the Customs Authorities cannot interfere with the powers of the Controller of Imports and Exports. 5. Adjudication Proceedings: The Court noted that in a similar matter, adjudication proceedings were halted by the Supreme Court. The appellants were directed to forward collected materials to the Controller of Imports and Exports for further action. In conclusion, the Court dismissed all appeals on the grounds that the points involved were identical, and no costs were awarded.
|
