2010 (1) TMI 458 - HC - Customs

Import - Licence transferred - Licence transferred in the name of petitioner but handed over to custom by another person. Licences are in possession of revenue. Held that - even if licences found to have expired while in the custody of department, the custom authority not to raise any objection on that count, if they find that goods imported were covered by subject licence since litigation in this behalf pending. Pendency of litigation is not expected to cause prejudice to petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of being a bona fide transferee of licenses, Confiscation of goods under Customs Act, Validity of licenses for duty-free clearance, Possession of licenses by Customs, Remittance of matter back to Adjudicating Authority for adjudication.

Analysis:
The petitioner claimed to be a bona fide transferee of two licenses originally issued to another entity. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated goods under the Customs Act, imposed fines, and denied duty-free clearance based on the licenses. The petitioner, aggrieved by this decision, approached the Appellate Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that although the licenses were transferred to the petitioner, they were handed over to Customs by a third party, leading to a conclusion that the imports under these licenses were not valid. The petitioner argued that the licenses were valid at the time of import, and Customs should have accepted them for duty clearance.

The Assistant Commissioner of Customs stated that the licenses were in possession of the department. The Revenue agreed to hand over the licenses to the concerned party to complete the adjudication process. Consequently, the previous orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority.

The Adjudicating Authority was directed to determine whether the licenses covered the imported goods within two weeks of their production. Even if the licenses had expired, Customs were not to object if the goods were covered by the licenses during the pending litigation. The petitioner agreed to maintain a Bank guarantee until the Adjudicating Order was finalized.

In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with both parties instructed to act upon the court's order. The decision aimed to ensure a fair adjudication process and prevent prejudice to the petitioner during the ongoing litigation.