2021 (4) TMI 927 - HC - Customs

Recovery of Interest - the Settlement Commission adjudicated the issues and granted full immunity from payment of fine and penalty and prosecution under the Customs Act - HELD THAT - The scope of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to scrutinise the process through which a decision is taken by the Competent Authorities with reference to the Statutes and not the decision itself. Thus, the decision taken, which all are disputed with reference to certain documents are to be adjudicated. The respondent-Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade is directed to consider the representation dated 14.02.2017 submitted by the writ petitioner through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, if necessary by providing personal hearing if any request is made in this regard by the writ petitioner - Petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Immunity from penalty granted by Settlement Commission.
2. Initiation of revenue recovery proceedings post-immunity.
3. Quashing of proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act.
4. Adjudication of disputed facts by Competent Authorities.
5. Scope of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Consideration of representation by Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade.
7. Directions for disposal of representation and prohibition on coercive action.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief as the Settlement Commission had granted full immunity from payment of fine and penalty under the Customs Act. However, subsequent to this, the respondents initiated action under the Revenue Recovery Act to recover a specified amount.

2. The petitioner argued that despite the Settlement Commission's grant of immunity, the respondents proceeded with revenue recovery proceedings erroneously. The petitioner emphasized that the issues were settled, and the order communicated to the respondents, warranting the quashing of the ongoing proceedings.

3. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General of India and the Central Government Standing Counsel, contended that the revenue recovery actions were based on facts related to payments made by the petitioner, following the prescribed procedures despite the immunity granted.

4. The Court observed that the disputed facts, including penalty payment, adjustments, and immunity granted, should be adjudicated by the Competent Authorities based on the evidence and documents presented by the parties. The High Court clarified its role, stating that it cannot delve into factual inquiries or determine liabilities in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. Regarding the scope of review under Article 226, the Court highlighted that the focus should be on scrutinizing the decision-making process of Competent Authorities in line with statutes, rather than the decisions themselves. Disputed decisions based on specific documents should be subject to adjudication by the relevant authorities.

6. The Court directed the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade to consider a representation submitted by the petitioner and dispose of it in accordance with the law. The petitioner was instructed to resend the representation along with relevant documents, and the Deputy Director General was mandated to complete the process within a stipulated timeframe.

7. Until the representation was resolved, the Court ordered that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner. Subsequently, both writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, concluding the legal proceedings.

← Previous Next →