9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of Show Cause Notice dated 3-3-2005. 2. Jurisdiction of authorities under the Customs Act, 1962, versus the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. 3. Claim for compensation for wrongful detention and torture. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Show Cause Notice dated 3-3-2005: The petitioners sought to quash the Show Cause Notice issued by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana, alleging that the competent authority to take action on the allegations is the adjudicating authority under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (the "1992 Act"). The court found no merit in this submission, stating that the Customs Act, 1962 (the "1962 Act"), provides machinery to ensure no evasion of customs duty. It was held that evasion of customs duty and violation under the 1992 Act could coexist, and the jurisdiction of the Customs authorities is not excluded by the 1992 Act. The court emphasized that allegations of evasion of duty maintain the jurisdiction of customs authorities. 2. Jurisdiction of authorities under the Customs Act, 1962, versus the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992: The court discussed the overlapping yet distinct purposes of the 1992 Act and the 1962 Act. The 1992 Act regulates foreign trade to facilitate imports and increase exports, while the 1962 Act provides for duty on import and export and the machinery therefor. The court held that both Acts could function with full vigour side by side in their own parallel channels. The principle that a special statute prevails over a general statute, or that an earlier statute may be overruled by a later statute, was considered. However, the court concluded that the present case falls under the category where two statutes can operate simultaneously without excluding each other. 3. Claim for compensation for wrongful detention and torture: The petitioners also sought compensation for wrongful detention and torture, alleging illegal detention and physical injuries during custody. The court noted that a criminal complaint had already been filed by the petitioners and was pending consideration before a competent court. Therefore, it found no ground to entertain the prayer for compensation in writ proceedings at this stage. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case and that the petitioners could take any defense available under the law in reply to the show cause notice. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed. The court upheld the jurisdiction of the customs authorities to issue the show cause notice and declined to quash it. The court also refrained from addressing the compensation claim in the writ proceedings, given the pending criminal complaint. The petitioners were advised to pursue their defense in response to the show cause notice through the appropriate legal channels.
|
