SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

The Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S.City Office Equipment on 25 April, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.04.2019

Judgment Reserved On Judgment Pronounced On
16.04.2019 25.04.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

Writ Appeal Nos.1215 of 2019
and 938, 941, 943, 984,
1022, 1023, 1025, 1026 and 1027 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.7074, 7083, 7088, 7375, 7689, 7690, 7691,
7692, 7694, 7695, 7696, 7700, 7702 and 8396 of 2019

W.A.No.1215 of 2019 :-

1.The Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai-II Commissionerate,
No.60, Rajaji Salai,
Customs House, Chennai-600 001.

2.The Joint/Addl Commissioner of
Customs (Gr-5),
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Customs House,
Chennai-600 001.

3.The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of
Customs (Gr-5),
No.60, Rajaji Salai,
Customs House, Chennai-600 001. .. Appellants/Respondents

-vs-

http://www.judis.nic.in
2

M/s.City Office Equipment,
Rep., by its Proprietor,
Pawan Kumar Jhunjunwala,
No.10, Aziz Mulk 4th Street,
Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 006. .. Respondent/Petitioner

APPEAL under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the

order dated 22.02.2019 made in Writ Petition No.26045 of 2018 on the

file of this Court.

——

For Appellant : Mr.K.S.Ramaswamy
(in W.A.No.1215/2019) Senior Standing Counsel

For Appellant : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan,
(in W.A.Nos.1022, 1023, Senior Standing Counsel
1025, 1026 1027/2019)

For Appellant : Mrs.R.Hemalatha,
(in W.A.Nos.938, 941 Senior Standing Counsel
943 of 2019)

For Appellant : Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy
(in W.A.No.984 of 2019) Senior Standing Counsel

For Respondents/
Writ Petitioners : Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel
(in all Appeals) for Mr.N.Viswanathan

For Respondent/DGFT : Mr.V.Chandrasekaran,
Standing Counsel

——

http://www.judis.nic.in
3

COMMON JUDGMENT

T.S.Sivagnanam, J.

These appeals are directed against the common order dated

22.02.2019 passed in the writ petitions filed by the respondents/writ

petitioners praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the

appellants to assess and clear the goods imported by them, viz., Old and

Used Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines (for brevity,

“MPCMs”) covered under the respective bills of entries upon payment of

applicable duties of customs as determined by the Chartered Engineer,

vide its report, and in terms of the judgment rendered by the Division

Bench of the High Court Andhra Pradesh and Telangana at Hyderabad in

W.P.No.2728 of 2018 dated 06.04.2018 which was accepted by the

Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs, New Delhi.

2.With the consent of the learned counsel on either side,

W.A.No.1215 of 2019 is taken as the lead case.

3.The respondent imported MPCMs with accessories and

attachments through the Chennai Customs classifying the goods under

CTH 84433100. The rate of duties applicable was zero percent BCD as

http://www.judis.nic.in
4

exempted under Serial No.2 of Notification No.24/2005-Cus., dated

01.03.2005 with zero percent surcharge and 18% IGST. The

consignment was ordered for examination under first check

appraisement system as they being second hand / used machinery. The

goods were examined in the presence of the Chartered Engineer

approved by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and the

reports were forwarded. The report stated that no major repairing or

reconditioning was noticed by the Chartered Engineer who also

confirmed that the goods are not e-wastes and non-hazardous. The

Department took a stand that the import of the second hand machines

are allowed for clearance subject to fulfilment of the following three

conditions:-

(i) Production of authorisation/import license issued by the DGFT

authorities since the subject goods are restricted under para 2.31 of FTP

2015-20.

(ii) Registration under the provisions of “Requirements for

Compulsory Registration” with BIS as per the Electronics and

Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory

Registration) Order 2012, dated 07.09.2012 and subsequent orders

dated 25.06.2013 and 07.11.2014 issued by MeitY.

http://www.judis.nic.in
5

(iii) Compliance of procedures as per the provisions of Hazardous

and other Wastes (Management Transboundary Movement) Rules,

2016 E-Waste Management Rules, 2016.

The appellant/Department stated that the goods imported by the

respondent can be permitted for clearance only after production of

authorisation/import licence issued by the DGFT authorities or any other

notification or clarification issued by the DGFT and they have to fulfil the

other two conditions, viz., BIS certificate and compliance of procedures

as per the provisions of Hazardous and other Wastes (Management

Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and E-Waste Management Rules,

2016.

4.The respondent/importer had complied with the condition as

required under the Hazardous and other Wastes (Management

Transboundary) Rules, 2016 and E-Waste Management Rules, 2016.

However, they did not produce the authorization/import licence issued

by the DGFT authorities and BIS certificate as required under the

Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for

Compulsory Registration) Order 2012, dated 07.09.2012, and

http://www.judis.nic.in
6

subsequent orders dated 25.06.2013 and 07.11.2014 issued by the

Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). Thus, the

stand taken by the appellant/Department was that all the three

mandatory requirements under the relevant Act/Rules have to be

independently fulfilled for clearance of the second hand machinery.

Faced with this situation, the respondent/writ petitioner sought

permission to warehouse the goods in terms of Section 49 of the

Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and they

required time to produce necessary documents and fulfil the statutory

compliance before seeking for clearance of the imported goods. The

respondent after having warehoused the goods, submitted

representation dated 06.07.2018 to release the goods provisionally

against PD bond and cash deposit as per the percentage followed by the

Custom House. In the said representation, the respondent contended

that if the import of such second hand machinery is restricted/curtailed,

it may result to closure of Indian Manufacturers and the “Make in India”

policy of the Government may become an exercise in futility. With

regard to the MeitY/BIS Guidelines – Rules, the respondent took a stand

that the subject machines are not notified in the order and notification of

MeitY and it would not be open to the custom authorities to insist for

http://www.judis.nic.in
7

registration of the subject machines in terms of the order dated

07.09.2012 and the notification of MeitY dated 07.11.2014.

5.The respondent relied upon the decision of the High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.2728 of 2018 dated 06.04.2018. The

representation dated 06.07.2018 was received by the

appellant/Department on 17.07.2018. Immediately thereafter, on

27.07.2018, the respondent filed the writ petition for the

aforementioned relief. In the writ petition, the Customs Department

(appellants) alone were impleaded as respondents and the authorities of

DGFT and MeitY were not made party respondents. The prayer sought

for was resisted by the appellant/Department that the three conditions

mentioned above have to be independently fulfilled for clearance of the

goods and admittedly, the respondent/writ petitioner did not fulfil two of

the three conditions and therefore, they are not entitled for clearance of

the goods.

6.It was argued that the appellants having warehoused the goods

on their own volition in terms of Section 49 of the Customs Act, Section

110 of the Act cannot be invoked. The learned Single Bench by the

impugned order directed the appellants to release the consignments of

http://www.judis.nic.in
8

MPCMs in cases where there is no challenge to the policy guidelines,

upon the respondents furnishing a bond for 90% of the enhanced

valuation of the goods, and security for the remaining 10% within one

week from the date of furnishing of the aforesaid security. The learned

Writ Court while issuing the said direction, referred to the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SectionCommissioner of Customs vs.

Athul Automations Private Limited [Civil Appeal Nos.1057, 1058,

1060 and 1059 of 2019: dated 24.01.2019] and followed the

condition imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by directing the

respondent to furnish a bond for 90% of the enhanced valuation and

security for the remaining 10%. The correctness of the direction issued

is being challenged before us.

7.We have heard Mr.K.S.Ramaswamy, Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan,

Mrs.R.Hemalatha and Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy, learned Senior Standing

Counsels for the appellant/Revenue; Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior

Counsel, for Mr.N.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the respondents/writ

petitioners; and Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, learned Standing Counsel for the

Director General of Foreign Trade, which Department was suo motu

impleaded by us in one of these appeals.

http://www.judis.nic.in
9

8.The goods imported by the respondent/writ petitioner are

second hand machinery. In terms of the policy guidelines issued by the

DGFT, authorisation/import licence ought to have been obtained, as the

goods are restricted for import in terms of Para 2.31 of the Foreign

Trade Policy 2015-20.

9.Before the learned Writ Court, there was no challenge to the

policy guidelines or the notification issued by MeitY. This has been noted

by the learned Single Bench in para 20 of the impugned order. Thus,

the respondent would have to reconcile with the fact that the goods

imported by them require prior authorisation/import licence for being

imported into India. Apart from the requirement to have an

authorisation/import licence, there are two other requirements to be

fulfilled by the importer for being entitled to seek clearance of the

goods. The three conditions which we have noted above are

independent and they are not optional, in other words, all the three

conditions are required to be fulfilled. We say so because, in the batch

of cases before us, none of the respondents/writ petitioners have either

challenged the Foreign Trade Policy or the Statutory Notification issued

by MeitY.

http://www.judis.nic.in
10

10.The appellants have stated before us that the respondent

complied with the procedures as per the provisions of Hazardous and

other Wastes (Management Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016

and E-Waste Management Rules, 2016 to certain extent. We take it

that, there has been fulfilment of one of the three conditions, yet the

respondent/importer has not fulfilled two of the conditions, viz.,

authorisation/import licence and BIS certificate as required under the

2012 order dated 07.09.2012 and subsequent orders dated 25.06.2013

and 07.11.2014 issued by MeitY.

11.Before us, the respondent do not dispute the fact that they do

not have authorisation/import licence, but the fact remains that the

respondent/writ petitioner had applied for such licence and in most of

the cases, the licence so requested has been rejected by MeitY. The

particulars in this regard have been furnished by the authorities of DGFT

in the form of a tabulated statement and by way of illustration, we take

the case of the respondent in W.A.No.1215 of 2019, viz., M/s.City Office

Equipment, which had filed the bill of entry on 15.06.2018. The

information produced before us shows that their application for grant of

http://www.judis.nic.in
11

import licence was rejected as not recommended by MeitY vide

OM No.16(19)/2018-IPHW dated 07.03.2018. This fact appears to have

been not placed before the learned Writ Court, nor explicitly stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. This fact would not

have come to light, but for this Court suo motu impleading the

authorities of DGFT as a party to one of these appeals. In all fairness,

the respondent/writ petitioner ought to have impleaded the authorities

of the said two Departments, since there is a restriction for import of the

subject goods and it is the authorities of DGFT and MeitY who would

have a say in the matter, as the Customs Department is only an

implementing authority. Thus, we would be fully justified in arriving at a

conclusion that the respondent/writ petitioner was fully aware of the fact

and that an import licence and appropriate BIS clearance certificate

under the relevant order is a prerequisite and having been well

acquainted with the legal position, they have applied for grant of such

licence which was either rejected or not entertained or kept pending

without orders. In such a factual position, we would be fully justified in

holding that the appellant can insist upon orders for provisional release

of the imported goods by raising a plea that the provisions of the

Foreign Trade Policy and the various notification and orders are not

http://www.judis.nic.in
12

sustainable or inapplicable to the goods imported by them. In fact, this

was rightly noted by the learned Single Bench in the impugned order

that there is no such challenge to the Foreign Trade Policy or any

notification or order.

12.The next question to be considered is whether Section 110A of

the Customs Act could be invoked by the respondent/writ petitioner.

The representation dated 06.07.2018 (17.07.2018) does not explicitly

state under which provision of the SectionCustoms Act they requested for

clearance of the goods. It merely requested for provisional clearance.

The relevant provision under the SectionCustoms Act which provides for

provisional clearance of goods is Section 110A. The said provision would

apply to goods, documents or things seized under Section 110, may,

pending the order of the adjudicating authority be released to the owner

on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and

conditions as the adjudicating authority may require. Thus, prerequisite

for Section 110A to be attracted is seizure of the goods under Section

110 and in terms of sub-Section (1) of Section 110, if the proper officer

has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the

SectionCustoms Act, he may seize such goods. Admittedly, till date, the goods

http://www.judis.nic.in
13

have not been seized. The respondents do not dispute the said factual

position. This is more so because, the goods have been warehoused in

terms of Section 49 of the Act.

13.Section 49 of the Act states that where in the case of any

imported goods, whether dutiable or not, entered for home

consumption, the custom authorities is satisfied on the application of the

importer that the goods cannot be cleared within a reasonable time, the

goods may, pending clearance, be permitted to be stored for a period

not exceeding thirty days in a public warehouse or in a private

warehouse if facilities for deposit in a public warehouse are not

available, but such goods shall not be deemed to be warehoused goods

for the purposes of SectionCustoms Act and accordingly, the provisions of

Chapter IX (warehousing) shall not apply to such goods. Proviso to

Section 49 states that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or

Commissioner of Customs may extend the period of storage for a further

period not exceeding thirty days at a time. This warehousing is done on

the application made by the respondents/importer requesting time for

production of requisite documents and the Assistant Commissioner of

Customs being satisfied that the goods cannot be cleared within the

http://www.judis.nic.in
14

reasonable time, pending clearance, has permitted the goods to be

stored in a warehouse. Thus, in the absence of seizure, the provision of

Section 110A would be inapplicable.

14.It is the argument of Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel

that is not not necessary for a formal order of seizure to be effected, but

it is sufficient to show that the goods having been detained and orders

have not been passed for clearance of goods, the respondents/importers

are entitled to seek for provisional clearance. Reliance was placed on

the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta

in SectionE.S.I. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2003 (156) ELT 344

Cal.

15.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellants would

contend that as long as there is no order of seizure, Section 110A will

not be applicable, nor the principles laid down thereunder can be made

applicable.

16.Before we examine the decision in the case of E.S.I. Ltd.

(supra), we need to point out that request for provisional clearance was

http://www.judis.nic.in
15

made vide representation dated 06.07.2017 received by the Department

on 17.07.2017. The writ petition was filed on 27.07.2018. Thus, within

ten days from the date on which representation was given, the

respondent/importer approached this Court seeking for issuance of a

Writ of Mandamus to direct release of the goods. Courts have

repeatedly held that a Writ of Mandamus should not be issued to dispose

of representations, that too, without affording reasonable time to the

authorities to act upon such representations. From the facts, it is clear

that the respondent/importer did not afford reasonable time to the

Department to consider the representation more so when they have

warehoused the goods at their option in terms of Section 49 of the Act.

17.In the case of E.S.I. Ltd. (supra), the goods which were

imported were originally detained and subsequently, the rooms in which

the goods were kept were sealed by the Customs officers and therefore,

the Court held that the importer’s dominion over the goods initially

detained went out of the hands of the importer, after the rooms in which

the goods have been kept were sealed by the customs officers and it

would tantamount to seizure for all practical purposes. In the cases on

hand, there is nothing placed on record by the respondent/importer that

http://www.judis.nic.in
16

there is a prohibitory order prohibiting them from seeking clearance of

the goods. The stand of the Department is that three conditions have to

be fulfilled by the importer individually and independently and they had

fulfilled only one of the three conditions and the remaining two are yet

to be fulfilled and it is the respondent/writ petitioner, who had requested

time and based on such request, warehousing was permitted. Thus, in

our considered view, the decision in the case of E.S.I. Ltd. (supra) is

clearly distinguishable on facts.

18.The learned Single Bench had disposed of the the writ petitions

by directing clearance of the goods subject to the condition that the

importer furnishes a bond for 90% of the enhanced valuation and the

remaining 10% by way of security to mean that the security should be

way of bank guarantee. This direction was in terms of the decision of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Athul Automations Private Limited

(supra).

19.Before us, the Revenue would strenuously contend that the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Athul Automations Private

Limited (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present

http://www.judis.nic.in
17

case. We test the stand of the Revenue for its correctness. Before we

proceed to go into the said decision, we may at the very outset point out

that the decision in Athul Automations Private Limited (supra) was

rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while testing the correctness of

the order passed by the Tribunal. In other words, the case proceeded

through a normal route of adjudicatory process culminated in an order

of the Tribunal which was challenged before the High Court and which

order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the said

case, the respondents/importers during October-November 2019

imported certain consignments of MultiFunction Devices (Digital

Photocopiers and Printers) (MFDs). The Commissioner of Customs held

that the imports were in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy and Rule

15(1)(2) of the Hazardous and other Wastes (Management

Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. Redemption fine was imposed

under Section 125 of the Act and consignment was released for re-

export only; penalty was also imposed under Section 112(a) along with

penalty under Section 114AA of the Act; and personal penalty on the

Directors. Before the Tribunal, the importers did not contest that the

import was in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy having been made

without the necessary prior authorisation. The Tribunal held that MFDs

http://www.judis.nic.in
18

imported by them did not constitute “waste” under Rule 3(1)(23) of the

Hazardous and other Wastes (Management Transboundary Movement)

Rules, 2016 and had a utility life of 5 to 7 years, as certified by the

Chartered Engineer. Release of the consignment was directed under

Section 125 of the Act, as the importers therein were held to have

substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 13 of the

Hazardous and other Wastes (Management Transboundary Movement)

Rules, 2016 read with Schedule VIII Entry 4(j) except for the country of

origin certificate. The Tribunal further noticed that earlier, similar

consignments of the importers and others have been released at

Calcutta, Chennai and Cochin Ports upon payment of redemption fine.

20.The Revenue preferred appeal to the High Court which held

that the MFDs correctly fell in the category of “other wastes” under Rule

3(1)(23) of the Hazardous and other Wastes (Management

Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 read with Part B and Part D of

Schedule II Item B1110 dealing with used MultiFunction Printer and

Copying Machines. Further, the High Court held that MFDs were not

prohibited but restricted items for import. The order for release of the

goods was upheld subject to execution of a simple bond without sureties

http://www.judis.nic.in
19

for 90% of the enhanced assessed value with further liberty to the DGFT

along with directions. The Revenue argued before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court to sustain the order of the adjudicating authority and contended

that the goods were rightly permitted to be cleared for re-export. The

importers sought to sustain the order and direction issued by the High

Court.

21.It was argued that the consignment was not prohibited, but a

restricted item. Section 125 of the Act vests discretion in the authority

to levy fine in lieu of confiscation and the Department has in the past

permitted release of MFDs on levy of redemption fine and the

discriminatory treatment with regard to the present consignment is

unjustified. The Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out that the importer

did not possess the necessary authorisation for their import and the

customs authorities therefore, prima facie cannot be said to be

unjustified in detaining the consignment. It further held that merely

because earlier on more than one occasion, similar consignments of the

importer and others have been cleared by the customs authorities at

Calcutta, Chennai or Cochin ports on payment of redemption fine cannot

be a justification simpliciter to demand a parity of treatment for the

http://www.judis.nic.in
20

present consignment also. Further, the defence that the DGFT had

declined to issue authorisation did not appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme

Court.

22.The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that harmonious reading of

the statutory provisions of the SectionForeign Trade Act and Section 125 of the

Act will therefore not detract from the redemption of such restricted

goods imported without authorisation upon payment of the market value

and accordingly, held that there is no error with the conclusion of the

Tribunal affirmed by the High Court. Thus, the importer was entitled to

redemption of the consignment on payment of the market price at the

reassessed value by the customs authorities with fine under Section

112(a) of the Act. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the

Chartered Engineer who inspected the consignment had certified that

MFDs were capable of utility for the next 5 to 7 years without any major

repairs. Thus, it approved the finding of the High Court that the goods

are classifiable as “other wastes” under Rule 3(1)(23) of the Hazardous

and other Wastes (Management Transboundary Movement) Rules,

2016.

http://www.judis.nic.in
21

23.Further, it was pointed out that Rule 13(2) provides procedure

for import of other wastes listed in Part D Schedule III. Item B1110 of

the Schedule mentions MFDs and under Entry 4(j), a list of five

documents required for import of used MFDs have been mentioned and

the respondents therein were found to be substantially complaint in this

regard and the requirement for the country of origin certificate was

found to be vague by the High Court. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court noted that the Hazardous and other Wastes (Management

Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 certificate has been issued to the

respondents/importers therein by the Central Pollution Control Board

before the goods have been cleared. Ultimately, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that in the statutory scheme of the SectionForeign Trade Act as

discussed in the judgment, there is no error in the penultimate direction

to the importers for deposit of bond without sureties for 90% of the

enhanced valuation of the goods leaving it to the DGFT to decide

whether confiscation needs to be ordered or release to be granted on

redemption at market value in which event, the respondents therein

shall be entitled to set off.

http://www.judis.nic.in
22

24.As discussed in the earlier part of this judgment, there are

three conditions to be fulfilled by an importer of which it was found that

the respondent/writ petitioner has complied with only one of the

conditions viz, with regard to the compliance of procedures as per the

provisions of Hazardous and other Wastes (Management

Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and E-Waste Management Rules,

2016. In the case of Athul Automations Private Limited (supra),

two things which were put against those importers were non compliance

of the conditions in the Foreign Trade Policy, that is, in not obtaining

prior authorisation/licence and not obtaining appropriate

clearance/permission under the Hazardous and other Wastes

(Management Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.

25.So far as the cases on hand is concerned, the appellants have

contended that the respondents have complied to a certain extent with

regard to the Hazardous and other Wastes (Management

Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and E-Waste Management Rules,

2016 which we take it as due compliance. The other common feature in

the case of Athul Automations Private Limited (supra) and the cases

before us is in not obtaining prior authorisation/licence from the DGFT

http://www.judis.nic.in
23

authorities. The case of Athul Automations Private Limited (supra)

went through the adjudicatory process resulting in an order being

passed by the Commissioner granting permission for re-export which

order was tested by the Tribunal for its correctness and further tested by

the High Court which order was subject matter of appeal before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, in the case on hand, the goods are

still in warehouse at the option of the respondent/importer and the

present controversy has arisen only because the respondent approached

this Court and sought for a direction for provisional clearance.

26.Considering the factual position, the respondent would not be

entitled to make a prayer for provisional clearance, as there is non

compliance of the vital requirement regarding BIS certificate as required

under Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for

Compulsory Registration) Order 2012 dated 07.09.2012 and subsequent

orders dated 25.06.2013 and 07.11.2014 issued by MeitY. We find that

this issue did not arise in the case of Athul Automations Private

Limited (supra) and the only common feature was non production of

advance authorisation/import licence. Thus, in our considered view, the

decision in the case of Athul Automations Private Limited (supra) is

http://www.judis.nic.in
24

factually distinguishable apart from the fact that the said case arose out

of an adjudicatory process in which the factual position was threadbare

analysed by two fact finding authorities. That apart, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court left the ultimate decision to be taken by DGFT.

27.As pointed out earlier, none of the provisions of the Foreign

Trade Policy or the notification/orders were challenged by the

respondents before the learned Writ Court and therefore, the

respondent cannot risile from complying with the conditions which have

been imposed under the notification and orders which have been issued

in public interest. As pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that

merely because a few consignments have been permitted to be cleared

in different ports can have no bearing on the case on hand, as each case

has to be decided on its own facts. The learned Single Bench had

directed furnishing of bond for 90% of the enhanced valuation of the

goods and security for the remaining 10%. To be noted that the stage is

yet to come for arriving at a valuation as the case is yet to be

adjudicated and even much prior to that, the respondent have rushed to

this Court and filed writ petitions, after on their own volition warehoused

the goods in terms of Section 49 of the Act.

http://www.judis.nic.in
25

28.In the light of the above discussion, we are of the clear view

that the order passed in the writ petitions calls for interference.

29.In the result, the writ appeals are allowed and the order passed

in the writ petitions is set aside. The facts clearly disclose that the

respondents would not be in a position to either produce authorisation

or licence from the authorities of DGFT, nor they would be able to

produce any certificate as required under the orders dated 07.09.2012,

25.06.2013 and 07.11.2014 issued by MeitY. Therefore, we direct the

appellants to commence adjudication process and show cause notice be

issued to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. After affording reasonable time to

the respondents to submit their reply to the show cause notice, the case

be adjudicated on merits in accordance with law after affording an

opportunity of personal hearing to the Authorized Representative of the

respondents. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petitions are closed.

(T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.)
25.04.2019
Index : Yes
Speaking Order
abr

http://www.judis.nic.in
26

T.S.Sivagnanam, J.
and
V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.

(abr)

Pre-delivery Judgment made in
W.A.Nos.1215 of 2019 and
938, 941, 943, 984, 1022, 1023,
1025, 1026 and 1027 of 2019

25.04.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation