9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Competency of the Assistant Collector of Customs to review his earlier order permitting export of goods. 2. Interpretation of Section 51 of the Customs Act regarding the power of the proper officer to permit clearance and loading of goods for exportation. Detailed Analysis: The judgment involved a case where two petitioners, Perumal Naidu and Subbaraj, sought to export Bone Meal to overseas buyers based on information that there were good prospects for such exports. They entered into a contract with a buyer in London and obtained necessary clearance from the Assistant Collector of Customs for export. However, before the goods could sail, the Assistant Collector changed his decision, citing that the goods were fertilizers requiring a license for export. The petitioners filed writ petitions to challenge this decision. The main issue before the court was whether the Assistant Collector had the authority to review or revise his earlier order permitting the export of goods. The court held that the Assistant Collector did not have the power to change his decision once he had issued the "Let export" order on 8-9-1973. The court referred to Section 51 of the Customs Act, which states that if the proper officer is satisfied that the goods are not prohibited and all duties are paid, he may permit clearance and loading for exportation. Since the original order was a statutory order under the Customs Act, it could only be revised or reviewed as per the provisions of the Act. The court found that there was no provision in the Customs Act that enabled the Assistant Collector to reverse his decision after issuing the "Let export" order. Therefore, the subsequent order on 13-9-1973 was deemed to be without jurisdiction. As a result, the court allowed all four writ petitions. The earlier order was quashed in the first two petitions, and a writ of mandamus was issued in the latter two petitions, directing the respondent to allow the export of the goods covered by the relevant shipping bills. The court also ruled that there would be no order as to costs in any of the writ petitions.
|
