Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2011 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 614 - HC - CustomsAppointment as custodian - principles of natural justice - It was further submitted that the petitioner company has been holding the custodianship of the Surat Special Economic Zone since the last fifteen years and has never violated any of the provisions of the notification appointing the petitioner company as custodian and has also followed the guidelines scrupulously and diligently without there being any complaints against the petitioner - A perusal of the provisions of the SEZ Act shows that the same does not contain any express provision for appointment of custodian. The power to appoint a custodian can be traced only to Section 45 of the Customs Act, which expressly confers the power of appointment of custodian on the Commissioner of Customs alone the court is of the prima facie view that Section 12 of the SEZ Act does not empower the Development Commissioner to appoint a custodian under Section 45 of the Customs Act, inasmuch as the powers under the Customs Act are required to be expressly assigned to the Development Commissioner under clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act - it is a well-settled position of law that acquiescence or waiver would not vest in an authority a power which is otherwise not vested in it. In the circumstances, in view of the findings recorded hereinabove, the said contention also does not merit acceptance - Held that: petitioner is entitled to interim relief
|