IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, while deciding on 24.9.09 the Customs Application No.9 of 2001 in re: COMMR. OF CUS. [PREVENTIVE] vs LEELA SCOTTISH LACE PVT. LTD, it was held as follows:-
QUOTE: It would be clear that what the Supreme Court has held that Clause (o) of Section 111 of the Act contemplates confiscation of goods which were exempted from duty subject to a condition which is not observed by the importer within the time prescribed. The occassion for the action under this clause arises only when the condition is not observed within the period prescribed. In the instant case, the respondents had not cleared the goods. The Bill of Entry was filed by some other person. Therefore, the question of breach of condition by the respondents would not arise. What Section 111(o) of the Act reiterates is “the condition is not observed”. The stage for observing the condition had not yet arisen as the goods themselves had not been clered by the respondents. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Tribunal was right in placing reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of SAMPAT RAJ DUGAR [UNION OF INDIA vs SAMPAT RAJ DUGAR - 1992-58-ELT-163-SC] UNQUOTE
[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_bom_cusa_9]
HIGH COURT ORDER
VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS
confiscation, CUSTOMS ACT 1962, PENALTY, SEC 111(O)
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ADOPTING SCHIZOPHRENIC APPROACH
The HIGH COURT OF DELHI, while deciding W.P. (C ) No. 10982 of 2006 on 20.03.2009 in re : VIJAY GULATI vs U.O.I. observed as follows : -
QUOTE : Now, the jurisdiction of the Customs authorities vis-à-vis the two sets of foreign exchange – one seized near the Airport and the other seized subsequently was on the basis that they formed part of the same transactions or arose out of the statement recorded in the first seizure. Such being the case and the notices, having been issued as a part of the same investigation process, the Central Government could not have adopted a schizophrenic approach ; on the one hand holding that the confiscation was unauthorized, and on other, upholding the confiscation in the absence of such order in the petitioner’s case. The order no where discloses that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, there was any such determination by the authorities under FEMA or the RBI, as the case may be. Therefore, Central Government has, in the impugned order disclosed an inconsistent and wholly illogical approach in law which can hardly commended by this Court. Having held that Customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter in the absence of a proper determination under the relevant law, the Central Government committed a fatal error of law in not applying the same reasoning to the latter part as far as it concerned the petitioner. The latter part of the order is at odds with the earlier reasoning, and without any rationale. UNQUOTE.
[for full text of the judgement, please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_del_wpc_10982]
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.
SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS
confiscation, SCHIZOPHRENIC APPROACH, seizure
