9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to enquiry on drawback received for supplies at Special Economic Zone, legality of search and seizure under Customs Act, jurisdiction of Customs authority, deemed exporters under Foreign Trade Act, lifting corporate veil to determine real control and management. Analysis: The petitioners challenged the enquiry regarding drawback received for supplies at a Special Economic Zone, claiming entitlement under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act for supplying finished leather goods to exporters within the zone. They argued against being subjected to search and seizure under the Customs Act, stating that they are not engaged in physical exports beyond Indian territorial waters. The petitioners highlighted that the amended provisions of the Customs Act related to Special Economic Zones had not been enforced by proper notification, thus questioning the jurisdiction of the Customs authority in their case. The petitioners contended that they were deemed exporters under a different Act, controlled by the Ministry of Commerce, and not under the jurisdiction of Customs authorities. They sought a stay on the summons, search, seizure, and enquiry related to the drawback received or receivable by them. On the other hand, the Customs Authorities argued that one of the petitioners was a partner in a company involved in fictitious exports, leading to an investigation into the matter. They presented documents showing the petitioner's involvement in the company and a voluntary statement acknowledging his roles in both entities. The Court considered the arguments from both sides and examined the control and management of the partnership firm and the company. It acknowledged that the petitioner was a director in the exporting company and a partner in the firm, along with family members holding similar roles. The Court discussed the concept of lifting the corporate veil to identify the real individuals behind the entities. While recognizing the legal position presented by the petitioners, the Court found prima facie evidence of a close connection between the partnership firm and the company, leading to the refusal of interim relief. The Court decided not to grant interim relief and directed the filing of affidavits within specified timelines. It allowed for the initiation of proceedings but stated that any final order resulting from the proceedings would require the Court's permission for implementation. All parties were instructed to act based on a signed copy of the order provided to them.
|
