9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. 2. Legality of the provisional order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana: The primary issue was whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions. The petitioner-company argued that the jurisdiction was conferred upon this court by virtue of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, which allows any High Court to exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territories. The petitioner highlighted several points to support this contention, including the location of its registered office at Chandigarh, the execution of irrevocable documentary credit through Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh, and the fact that the customs duty, in case of default, was recoverable from the petitioner or their bankers at Chandigarh. Surinder Singh, J. supported the view that the court had jurisdiction, citing various precedents such as L.V. Verri Chettiar v. Sales Tax Officer, Bombay, and the Supreme Court's observations in Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. However, Goyal, J. disagreed, emphasizing that none of the facts constituting the grounds for the challenge to the provisional order arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He referenced the Privy Council's definition of "cause of action" and concluded that the court lacked jurisdiction as the order was passed and served in Bombay, not Chandigarh. Ultimately, the court concurred with Goyal, J.'s view, holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. 2. Legality of the Provisional Order Passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs: The petitioner-company challenged the provisional order on two grounds: 1. The order was passed without calling upon the petitioner to produce any document or information. 2. The order was allegedly passed on the direction of an outside authority (S.I.I.B.). Regarding the first ground, the court referred to Section 18 of the Customs Act, which allows for provisional assessment pending the production of documents or information. The court clarified that the provisional order did not require prior production of documents or information, and the agents of the petitioner-company were duly heard before the order was passed. On the second ground, the court explained that the expression "as per S.I.I.B. order" in the impugned order did not imply that the Assistant Collector of Customs abdicated his authority to S.I.I.B. The Special Intelligence Investigating Bureau (S.I.I.B.) merely provided information on the prevailing prices of imported goods to assist in the assessment. The court found the Assistant Collector's reliance on S.I.I.B.'s information to be lawful and within his authority. Conclusion: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the writ petitions on both grounds. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petitions and found no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The petitioner-company was ordered to pay Rs. 500/- as costs to respondent 2 in each petition.
|
