9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the petitioner to pay customs duty under the terms of the bond. 2. Jurisdiction and legality of the demand notices issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs. 3. Availability and adequacy of alternative remedies for the petitioner. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability of the petitioner to pay customs duty under the terms of the bond: The petitioner argued that under the terms of the bond, they were only required to produce a certificate within two months of despatching goods to Calcutta, confirming the arrival and receipt of the goods by the consignees. They contended that the bond did not stipulate payment of customs duty for goods lost by fire or other accidents while in transit through Pakistan. The Advocate General countered that the liability arose under the Indian Tariff Act and the Land Customs and Sea Customs Acts once the goods crossed the Indian border, and the bond merely provided exceptions under specific conditions. The court found that the demand for customs duty was not justified under the bond's terms, as there was no provision for payment of duty on goods lost due to fire. 2. Jurisdiction and legality of the demand notices issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs: The petitioner challenged the legality of the demand notices, arguing that there was no statutory provision allowing the Assistant Collector to issue such notices. The court examined Sections 2 and 5 of the Indian Tariff Act, Section 4 of the Land Customs Act, and Section 20 of the Sea Customs Act, concluding that while these sections provided for the levy of customs duty, there was no procedure for recovery through demand notices. The court held that the notices lacked statutory basis and were therefore illegal. 3. Availability and adequacy of alternative remedies for the petitioner: The Advocate General argued that the petitioner should have filed an appeal under Section 188 of the Sea Customs Act, which provides for an appeal to the Chief Customs Authority against decisions or orders by Customs Officers. The court noted that the right to appeal presupposes a valid order or decision under the Act. Since the demand notices were not valid orders, the petitioner was justified in seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court also observed that alternative remedies are not an absolute bar to exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when the impugned actions are without jurisdiction. Conclusion: The court allowed the petitions, issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to enforce the demand notices, as there was no statutory provision authorizing their issuance. The court emphasized that if the respondent had any legitimate claim for customs duty, it should be pursued through proper legal proceedings, not through unauthorized demand notices. The petitions were made absolute, with each party bearing its own costs.
|
