2025 (1) TMI 689 - HC - Customs

Contravention of Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - applicability of order for approval of resolution plan under Section 31 (1) of the IBC - HELD THAT - Hon ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Edelweiss 2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT leaves no manner of doubt whatsoever that no claim except which is categorically approved in the resolution plan shall survive after the order under Section 31 (1) of the IBC is passed. The decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Edelweiss applies fully and squarely to the facts of the present case. Therefore, no new customs duty, interest or penalty which has been proposed by the respondent can be levied, once the resolution plan stands approved. Conclusion - i) Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the IBC, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished. ii) The IBC's provisions override other laws, including the Customs Act, regarding claims extinguished by a resolution plan. Appeal allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:

Whether the impugned order dated 19.01.2023 contravenes Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
Whether the claims for customs duty, interest, and penalty can be pursued against the petitioner after the approval of the resolution plan under Section 31 of the IBC.
Whether the provisions of the IBC prevail over the Customs Act, 1962, in the context of claims not included in the approved resolution plan.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Contravention of Section 31 of the IBC

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 31 of the IBC stipulates that once a resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority, it is binding on all stakeholders, including creditors and government authorities. The Supreme Court's decision in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. reinforces this principle.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court emphasized that the resolution plan, once approved, freezes claims and extinguishes any not included in the plan. This is supported by the 2019 Amendment to Section 31, which is declaratory and retrospective.
Key evidence and findings: The approved resolution plan included specific clauses that extinguished any claims not explicitly recognized within it.
Application of law to facts: The court found that the customs claims were not part of the resolution plan, thus they could not be pursued post-approval.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent argued that the customs claims were not finalized before the resolution plan's approval. However, the court held that the absence of finality does not exempt such claims from being extinguished if not included in the plan.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the impugned order violated Section 31 of the IBC, as the claims were extinguished by the resolution plan.

Issue 2: Pursuit of Customs Claims Post-Resolution Plan Approval

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The IBC's supremacy over other laws, including the Customs Act, is established through Section 238 of the IBC, as interpreted in the Edelweiss case.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court reiterated that no claims can be initiated or continued once extinguished by an approved resolution plan.
Key evidence and findings: The resolution plan specifically stated that no further claims could be brought against the company or the resolution applicant after approval.
Application of law to facts: The court applied the principle that statutory dues not included in the resolution plan are extinguished, thus invalidating the customs claims.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's reliance on the lack of finality of the customs claims was rejected based on the binding nature of the resolution plan.
Conclusions: The court found that the customs claims could not be pursued, as they were extinguished by the approved resolution plan.

Issue 3: Prevalence of IBC over Customs Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 238 of the IBC provides that its provisions override other laws in case of inconsistency.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court held that the IBC's provisions, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, took precedence over the Customs Act regarding claims extinguished by a resolution plan.
Key evidence and findings: The court relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation that statutory dues not included in a resolution plan are extinguished.
Application of law to facts: The court applied this principle to conclude that the customs claims were invalid post-approval of the resolution plan.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's argument for the applicability of the Customs Act was dismissed in light of the IBC's overriding provisions.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the IBC's provisions prevailed, rendering the customs claims unenforceable.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:

"No further claims, either against the company or against the resolution applicant will be permitted to be brought once the plan has been approved and implementation has commenced."

Core principles established:

Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the IBC, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished.
The IBC's provisions override other laws, including the Customs Act, regarding claims extinguished by a resolution plan.
The 2019 Amendment to Section 31 of the IBC is retrospective, reinforcing the extinguishment of claims not included in an approved resolution plan.

Final determinations on each issue:

The impugned order dated 19.01.2023 was quashed as it contravened Section 31 of the IBC.
The customs claims could not be pursued post-approval of the resolution plan.
The IBC's provisions prevailed over the Customs Act, rendering the customs claims unenforceable.

← Previous Next →