9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents insisted on the CCP. It is, therefore, that the petitioner is constrained to file the present petition. 3.The petition came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge (Mrs. Manohar, J., as she then was in this Court) on 11th December, 1987 and an order was passed granting interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) of the petition, whereby the petitioner was permitted to obtain clearance of said car under the exemption order which he had received from the Central Govt. and under which he had imported the vehicle. The petition was also admitted on that date. 4.Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are stated as follows :- The petitioner imported the car with appropriate modification under paragraph 104 of the Central Government Policy read with Notification No. 152 of 1983 dated 25th May, 1983 read with Import Trade Control Order dated 15th April 1983. Prior thereto, he had applied for exemption order on 23rd September 1982. On the queries raised by the Ministry of Finance, he was required to give a medical examination report and file his tax report. The petitioner submitted all the necessary documents and complied with the requisitions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on which duty relief has been given. 7.Thus, the exemption order was quite clear that the CCP was not necessary for import of this car. Even so, the Authorities of the respondents insisted that the CCP be produced by the petitioner for clearance of the vehicle which action is challenged in the present petition. 8.A reply dated 12th November, 2003 has been filed on behalf of the respondents by one Mr. D.H. More, Assistant Commissioner of Customs. It is rather unfortunate that the reply makes some wrong statements. In paragraph 2 thereof, it is stated that the petitioner is claiming the import without any payment of duty. That is not so. He is required to pay 50% of the duty and he is/was all throughout ready to pay it. The reply thereafter states that the petitioner has not made it clear as to how he is physically handicapped. That is the basis of his claim which is stated in paragraph 1 of the petition and that was also stated to the respondents and the medical certificates were given and thereafter only the exemption order was passed. It is thereafter stated that the exemption order was subject to the conditions that the car imported will not be sold without permission of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to give helping hand to physically challenged persons. Normally, import of luxury items like cars/vehicles would not have been encouraged. Still, however, in case of physically challenged persons, the exemption was provided, since such especially designed/modified version of the car vehicles could not be easily made available in India, at the relevant time. The difficulties of physically challenged persons in driving automobiles was sought to be removed under the Government policy in question. It can be gathered that misuse of such exemption was also taken care of and remedied under the said policy. Obviously, the concerned Customs officer ought not to have insisted upon production of CCP by the petitioner. In spite of the clear directions under Notification dated 25th May, 1983, the concerned Customs officer asked the petitioner to produce the CCP, which was not necessary at all. This is a classic example of how benevolent provision made by the Government, aimed at bringing about social justice, particularly, in relation to the physically challenged persons is thwarted by the Government officials. Instead of proper implementation of the beneficial policy, the concerned official/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the respondents herein did creat needless hurdles by asking production of CCP from the petitioner. Having noted the rival submissions and the bureaucratic stand of the respondents, we are of the opinion that the directions issued by the respondents to the petitioner that he should produce CCP was quite illegal and must be interfered with. 14.For the reasons stated above, we allow the petition and set aside the requirements of the Customs Clearance Permit. The respondents will hand over the original Bank Guarantee to the petitioner duly cancelled within two weeks. That will enable the petitioner to get back his Fixed Deposit Receipt and the share certificates from his Bank. 15.The petitioner had paid 50% of the import duty i.e. Rs. 52,000/- which in fact is the entire duty under the exemption order. It is only because the respondents insisted on the CCP being tendered that by way of abundant caution, the Court directed the petitioner to give a Bank Guarantee for the remaining 50% amount in the event the petitioner would fail to produce the CCP and this CCP being held to be mandatory requirement. It is very clear and it is not so and, therefore, the Bank Guarantee will be disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
