1987 (7) TMI 335 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Tribunal to issue directions for the grant of detention certificates under Rule 41 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, 1982.
2. Period for which the detention certificate should be granted.
3. Whether the Tribunal can direct Customs authorities to issue a detention certificate for the period from 22-8-1981 to 20-10-1981.

Analysis:

1. Competence of the Tribunal to Issue Directions for the Grant of Detention Certificates:
The primary issue is whether the Tribunal has the competence to direct Customs authorities to issue a detention certificate under Rule 41 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The Tribunal's power under Rule 41 is to make orders or give directions necessary to give effect to its orders, prevent abuse of its process, or secure the ends of justice. The applicants argued that the Tribunal could issue such directions based on the precedent set by the Madras High Court in the case of National Industries (1980 E.L.T. 128), which held that the issuance of detention certificates is a statutory duty of Customs officers under Sections 17 and 45 of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal noted that the issuance of detention certificates is not explicitly covered under the Customs Act and is instead governed by separate rules under the Port Trust Act.

2. Period for Which the Detention Certificate Should Be Granted:
The applicants requested a detention certificate for the period from 24-2-1981 to 29-11-1981. The Customs authorities issued a certificate for only 39 days, from 11-9-1981 to 20-10-1981. The applicants argued that the entire period of detention should be covered because the goods were detained for Customs purposes. The Customs authorities contended that the relevant period should start from the effective presentation of the Bill of Entry on 22-8-1981 and end on 20-10-1981, the date when permission to bond the goods was granted.

3. Whether the Tribunal Can Direct Customs Authorities to Issue a Detention Certificate:
The Tribunal was divided on whether it could direct the Customs authorities to issue a detention certificate. One member argued that the Tribunal could not issue such directions as it would be acting beyond its statutory powers under the Customs Act. The other member believed that the Tribunal could issue such directions under Rule 41 to secure the ends of justice, especially since the detention was due to an erroneous assumption by the Customs authorities.

Detailed Judgment:

Majority Opinion:
The majority opinion, including the Vice-President (Judicial), held that the application should be rejected as not competent under Rule 41 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The Tribunal cannot issue directions for the grant of detention certificates as this function is not covered under the Customs Act but under separate rules of the Port Trust Act. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to the framework of the Customs Act, and it cannot extend its powers to cover administrative functions of Customs officers that are not appealable under the Act.

Dissenting Opinion:
The dissenting member argued that the Tribunal should direct the Customs authorities to issue a detention certificate for the period from 22-8-1981 to 20-10-1981. The member contended that the ends of justice required such a direction, as the detention was due to the Customs authorities' erroneous interpretation of the import license's validity. The member cited the principle of restitution and the Madras High Court's judgment to support this view.

Final Order:
The application was dismissed as not competent under Rule 41 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, 1982, based on the majority opinion. The Tribunal concluded that it does not have the jurisdiction to direct the Customs authorities to issue a detention certificate for the period requested by the applicants.

← Previous Next →