1986 (2) TMI 235 - HC - Customs

Show cause notice containing two different matters - Court is competent to set aside the bad part without interfering with the other part.

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of show cause notices issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs.
2. Compliance with conditions of the notification issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Jurisdiction of Customs authorities to issue show cause notices in light of existing bonds.
4. Interpretation of the conditions in the notification vis-`a-vis the Exchange Control Manual.
5. Allegations of excess quantity of shipment.
6. Jurisdictional error and error of law apparent in issuing the show cause notices.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Show Cause Notices:
The petitioner challenged several show cause notices dated 26th March, 1970, issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The petitioner contended that the authorities were not competent to issue these notices due to the existence of bonds, arguing that the Department should institute a suit for enforcement of their rights under the bond. This contention was rejected, with the court holding that the Customs Authority could proceed under the Customs Act, and the bond provided an additional right without derogating from the jurisdiction of the respondents.

2. Compliance with Conditions of the Notification:
The central question was whether the petitioner fulfilled the conditions required under the notification issued on 11th June, 1966, under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The notification exempted certain goods from customs duty, provided specific conditions were met. The court found that the petitioner had complied with Clauses (A) and (B) of the notification. The dispute centered on Clause (C), which required a forward contract with a bank authorized to deal in foreign exchange. The department argued that this contract should be subsequent to the contract for the sale of goods, but the court held that the notification did not stipulate such a sequence.

3. Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities:
The petitioner argued that the Customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notices due to the bonds. The court held that the existence of bonds did not preclude the Customs authorities from proceeding under the Customs Act. The bond only provided an additional right for the authorities to institute a suit, and the impugned action was taken under the Act.

4. Interpretation of Notification Conditions and Exchange Control Manual:
The court examined whether the conditions of the notification were influenced by the Exchange Control Manual. The department relied on paragraph 4 of the Manual, which required satisfactory documentary evidence for forward purchase contracts. The court held that the notification did not explicitly reference the Manual, and non-compliance with the Manual did not imply non-fulfillment of the notification conditions. The court found that the authorized dealer had been satisfied with the documentary evidence, and any failure on the dealer's part did not invalidate the contract.

5. Allegations of Excess Quantity of Shipment:
The petitioner disputed the factual basis of the department's allegation of excess quantity of shipment. The court held that it could not adjudicate this issue in the writ petition due to the factual dispute and did not accept the contention at this stage.

6. Jurisdictional Error and Error of Law Apparent:
The court found that the show cause notices were issued based on a wrong interpretation of the notification. The court held that the notification did not require the foreign exchange contract to be subsequent to the contract for the sale of goods. The court concluded that this constituted a jurisdictional error and an error of law apparent, rendering the show cause notices invalid.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge. The court held that the Customs authorities had misinterpreted the notification and lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notices based on the incorrect interpretation. The court also clarified that the existence of bonds did not preclude the authorities from proceeding under the Customs Act. The allegations of excess quantity of shipment were not adjudicated due to factual disputes. The court rejected the department's reliance on the Exchange Control Manual, emphasizing the notification's conditions.

← Previous Next →