2009 (1) TMI 280 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of goods for non production of licence - Release of goods challenged - Held that - Writ of Mandamus lies on the principle request and denial , which means, there should be a request by an individual and subsequent denial by the statutory authorities. In the present case, only one element, namely, request exists and the other, namely, denial absents. To put it differently, a request was made by the respondent and the same was under consideration by the appellants, but, there was no denial or rejection of the said request by the appellants. So, when the said request made by the respondent was under consideration by the authorities, it was unfair for the respondent to approach the writ court. At the same time, it was also not the case of the respondent that there was an inordinate delay in considering his request by the appellants. In such circumstances, the learned single Judge ought to have primarily looked into the maintainability of the Writ Petition itself. Instead, he ordered release of the goods, which, in our view, is not justiciable.

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Challenge to the order directing release of goods under Writ Petition.
3. Interpretation of Clause 2.17 of the Exim Policy regarding import of second-hand capital goods.
4. Statutory powers of authorities under Customs Act.
5. Requirement of reasons in judicial orders.
6. Justiciability of Writ Petition for release of goods.

Issue 1: Confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The respondent imported photocopiers without a specific license as required by the Exim Policy. The goods were appraised at a higher value than declared, leading to confiscation under Section 111(d). The court noted the mandatory requirement of a license for specific goods and the respondent's failure to possess one.

Issue 2: Challenge to the order directing release of goods under Writ Petition:
The respondent filed a Writ Petition seeking release of the goods pending adjudication. The single Judge directed release on payment of duty and depositing a sum. The appellants challenged this order, arguing that it curtailed their statutory adjudication powers. The court emphasized the importance of allowing authorities to perform their duties without undue interference.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Clause 2.17 of the Exim Policy regarding import of second-hand capital goods:
Clause 2.17 permits the import of second-hand capital goods freely, but certain items like photocopiers require a specific license. The respondent did not possess this license, leading to delays in clearance. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to policy requirements for the release of goods.

Issue 4: Statutory powers of authorities under Customs Act:
The court emphasized the need for authorities to have the time to consider requests and discrepancies in declarations before releasing goods. Rushing to court without allowing the statutory process to unfold was deemed inappropriate, especially when no rejection of the request had occurred.

Issue 5: Requirement of reasons in judicial orders:
The court underscored the necessity of providing reasons in orders to ensure transparency and allow for effective appellate review. The absence of reasons in the single Judge's order was deemed unsustainable, emphasizing the importance of clarity in judicial decisions.

Issue 6: Justiciability of Writ Petition for release of goods:
The court found that the Writ Petition lacked the element of denial by authorities, as the request was still under consideration. Approaching the court prematurely without demonstrating an inordinate delay in processing the request was considered unfair. The court held that the single Judge's order for release was not justiciable in the given circumstances.

In conclusion, the Writ Appeal was allowed, setting aside the single Judge's order. The appellants were directed to consider the respondent's representation and take appropriate action promptly in accordance with the law.

← Previous Next →