|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1606 Records
-
2023 (11) TMI 917
Refund of CVD duty (SAD) in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 as amended - rejection on the ground that the declaration of endorsement/stamping made on the invoices are not as per the Circular issued by the Board - also alleged that sale invoices do not mention the name of the appellant herein - HELD THAT:- It is found that the refund claim is sought to be denied on technical grounds that the wordings of the endorsement made in the sales invoice are not strictly as per the Circular issued by the Board and that the sale invoices do not mention the name of the appellant on the invoice. However, there is a clear endorsement on the invoice that the goods have been imported by the consignor vide Bill of Entry No. 618526 date 24.5.2010 and that in respect of the goods no credit of additional duty of customs has been availed. Any doubts regarding the importer could have been ascertained from the details given in the BE. As per Board Circular No. 16/2008-Cus dated 13.10.2008, it has been clarified that in case of sale of imported goods by importer through consignment agent / stockist, the refund of 4% CVD shall be granted by customs field formation subject to the condition that the consignment agent / stockist has been authorized to sell the imported goods in terms of the agreement entered into between the importer and consignment agent / stockist.
The minor non-compliance of procedure pointed out in the impugned order could otherwise have been verified with contemporary documents and on physical enquiry should not have led to the denial of substantial benefit especially in this era of trade facilitation - the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CHOWGULE & COMPANY PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE [2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)] has examined the similar issue and held that in respect of a commercial invoice, which shows no details of the duty paid, the question of taking of any credit would not arise at all. Therefore, non-declaration of the duty in the invoice issued itself is an affirmation that no credit would be available and would satisfy the conditions prescribed under Notification No. 102/2007-cus.
Thus, the appellant is eligible for refund and it would be improper to deny the same on minor procedural grounds which are otherwise verifiable - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 916
EOU - Destruction or disposal of obsolete imported raw material and components - Direction to destroy or dispose the goods only after payment of duty on the assessable value at the time of import with interest till date of payment of duty.
Whether the raw materials/components procured without payment of duty under notification 52/2003-cus dated 31.03.2003 can be permitted to be destroyed without payment of duty when the goods become obsolete and unfit for manufacture?
HELD THAT:- As per the Circular dated 10.9.1999, the supplier of such defective/damaged or otherwise unfit for use, goods, does not insist on re-export of such goods, the same may not be re-exported subject to the condition that such goods shall be either destroyed with the permission of the Assistant Commissioner in-charge of the unit or cleared into DTA on payment of full Customs duty - It is an admitted fact that appellant vide letter dated 01.09.2010 sought permission from the Department for destruction of obsolete imported raw material and components. They have also informed that destroyed goods would be sold as scrap and duty discharged on the scrap value of the obsolete raw materials. Thus, the adjudication authority ought to have allowed the request of the appellant for destruction of such goods either within the unit or destroyed outside the unit when it is not possible to destroy the same within the unit without insisting for payment of custom duty especially when respondent have allowed destruction of obsolete goods subject to payment of scrap value earlier.
In the instant case, there is no dispute that the appellant had vide letter dated 29.11.2010 had requested the Department for permission to destroy the goods that were obsolete and unfit for use and they had also agreed to pay duty on the scrap value of the goods.
The Hon’ble High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-V VERSUS PURE RICE LTD. [2007 (4) TMI 270 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH] relying upon the Notification 60/99 dated 10.9.99 has category been held that in case the goods supplied are unfit for use in the supplier does not insist on re-export when such goods are required either to be distracted with the permission of the resident Commissioner of Customs Central Excise in charge of the unit or cleared into DTA on payment of full customs duty the circular appear to have been issued on account of difficulties being faced by the export oriented units like the petitioner in regard to replacement of goods imported or exported which have been found to be damaged or defective or otherwise unfit for use. Therefore, there arises no substantial question of law warranting admission of the appeal.
There are no merit in the impugned orders. Appeals are allowed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 915
Levy of anti-dumping duty - Reflective Glass - applicability of 4/2009 dated 06.01.2009 - whether the importer is eligible for the benefit of exemption from anti-dumping duty during the relevant period i.e., from 06.01.2009 to 22.05.2009? - HELD THAT:- Though the Notification No.165/2003-cus. dated 12.11.2003 and Notification No.51/2009-Cus. dated 22.5.2009 excluded reflective glass from the levy of anti-dumping duty whereas the Notification No.4/2009-Cus. dated 06.01.2009 did not exclude Reflective Glass. As claimed by the appellant, there could be an omission but that omission cannot be set right by the Customs authorities in as much as the Customs Notifications are issued only on the basis of the findings of the DGAD and their notifications.
The Supreme Court of India in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT VERSUS ARCELOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LIMITED [2022 (1) TMI 1013 - SUPREME COURT] held that so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent that prior to 14-11-2000, there was no demand of the purchase tax and/or the exemption from payment of purchase tax was made available in the earlier assessment years and, therefore, in the subsequent assessment years also, the respondent-assessee shall be entitled to the exemption is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. In the taxation matters, every assessment year/period is a different year/period.
In view of above observations of the Supreme Court, the question of interpreting the exemption Notification has to be done in the manner specified in the Notification. In the present case, since Reflective Glass is not found in the Notification No.4/2009-Cus. dated 06.01.2009 for exempting them from anti-dumping duty, question of extending the benefit does not arise. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that no attempt can be made to infer the motive or meaning of the Notification other than what is emanating from the plain language of the Notification.
The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 914
Project Import - finalization of provisional assessment under section 18(2) of the Customs Act read with Regulation 17 of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 - non-compliance of the post import conditions of the Project Import Regulations - confiscation - HELD THAT:- Pursuant to repeated requests from the appellant for reconciliation and for reconsideration and finalization of the project import, the department however issued Show Cause Notice dated 20.10.2014, despite rendering copies of file notes of the communication regarding essentiality certificates, contract and other import related documents required to be furnished for finalizing the Project Import assessment undertaken. The importer’s repeated requests for the release of the Security Deposit therefore failed to fructify. The department, with reference to the re-conciliation statement pointed out the anomalous position with regard to the project registered for Dus Nallah not being located at the given site and charged with diversion of import goods.
In the first place issuance of Show Cause Notice in itself is grossly misplaced and misdirected. Moreover, this has been compounded by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority by adjudicating the matter against the appellants. Despite clearly taking note of the factual position, disallowing the benefit of the project import regulations and the concessional rate of duty is certainly an error of judgement - it is also noted that the appellant has repeatedly written to the department with regard to the refund of the Security Deposit, post completion of the project and submission of the required documents. As is evident from the exchange of correspondence between the department and the importer, in respect of return of Security Deposit, it is noted that the department initially for several years took the plea of first having lost the file and thereafter has grossly delayed the matter by over 6-7 years.
The impugned order is set aside. The department is directed to undertake and complete the reconciliation process within two months of the receipt of this order - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 913
Revocation of Customs Broker License of the appellant - levy of penalty - non-compliance with the conditions of the Circular No.25 dated 14.08/2013 read with CBIC Circular No.34/2013 dated 04.09.2013 or not - HELD THAT:- To initiate proceedings against the appellant under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 are based on a case booked against the importer M/s. Shree Ganesh Jewellery House (I) Ltd. for which the appellant filed 5 Bills of Entry and cleared the goods. In that case, after post-importation importer could not fulfill the conditions of imports, therefore, the proceedings were initiated and the appellant was penalized for a penalty of Rs.25.00 Lakhs.
Further, the proceedings against the appellant in the impugned order has been initiated based on the penalty imposed on the appellant which has been set aside by this Tribunal in M/S INDO FRIENDS AGENCY, M/S OCEAN SHIPPING & CLEARING AGENCY AND M/S BRINK’S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT & ADMN.) , KOLKATA [2023 (7) TMI 1070 - CESTAT KOLKATA], in that circumstances, it is held that the impugned proceedings under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 are not sustainable against the appellant.
The order of revocation of Customs Broker License and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant under the said Regulation is set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 912
Levy of ASEAN India Free Trade Preferential Tariff rate of duty - benefit of Notification No.46/2011-CUS dated 01.06.2011 (Sl.No.440) - HELD THAT:- The appellants have submitted that as the original consignment was split up into five smaller imports, therefore, common invoice number had to be split up into five sets as A, B, C, D and E - it is found that this argument of the appellant to carry substantive force and be meaningful. Particularly when collectively the quantity of the five import invoice (72 MTs each) total up to the impugned quantity (360 MTs) and all other particulars of the import invoices are in sync with the details furnished in the impugned certificate - It is settled law that procedural lapses, if any, cannot come in the way of disallowing a substantive benefit to the party, as long as there was no prejudice caused to the contents and the intentions of the documents.
As long as the language of the Notification is clear and unambiguous, it is not for the courts to go behind its prescription. Further, in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment and regard has to be given to the plain language and clear meaning of the words. In accordance with the provisions of Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods) Rules 2009 under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of member states of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the (Republic of India), we note, that the appropriate authority has issued the certificate upended with the case records and referred to by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). A clerical error, if at best any, would not merit rejection of the said original certificate in its entirety and thereof deprive the benefit thereof to the person availing the same.
The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order is bereft of any merit and is liable to be set aside - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 911
Seeking grant of bail - evasion of Customs Duty - misdeclaration of year of manufacturing in order to under value the goods to evade applicable customs duty - HELD THAT:- The investigation relating to misdeclaration of year of manufactured of old and used crane is based on the documents which are with respective RTO's and called by the prosecution. On behalf of applicant/accused it is submitted that, he is ready to cooperate for investigation and submit document which are available with him. Therefore considering that, it is just and proper to enlarge him on bail on certain terms and conditions.
It is directed that accused be released on bail on fulfilment of conditions imposed - application allowed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 877
Refund of SAD - Authenticity of certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant - HELD THAT:- It is found that no ulterior motive of the appellant towards production of the earlier certificate has been proved. They have produced a fresh Chartered Accountant’s Certificate dated 06.10.2023.
The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority - He is directed to check the veracity of the Certificate and if all other related documents are found to be in order, pass a necessary order allowing the refund claim filed by the appellant. If the refund is held as eligible, the present confirmed demand against the appellant along with interest and penalty would get set aside.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2023 (11) TMI 841
Dismissal of appeal - appeals have not been filed by a person authorized under Rule 3 of Customs Appeal Rules, 1982 - procedural lapse or not - HELD THAT:- It is seen that Custom House Agent cannot file appeal under his signature and authorization. Such signature or authorization can be made only if the importer is not in India at the material time and the Custom House Agent or any other person duly authorized for filing appeal in terms of Rule 3 of Customs Appeal Rules, 1982. This deficiency should have been pointed out by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the appellant and the same could have been corrected. This cannot be a ground for rejection of appeal itself.
In the interest of justice, the impugned order set aside and matter remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to treat this as a defect and offer an opportunity to the appellant to correct the same in terms of Rule 3 of the Custom Appeals Rules, 1982 - appeal allowed b way of remand.
-
2023 (11) TMI 840
Change of classification of the goods imported by the appellant - Import of various items which are undisputedly used in manufacture of motor vehicles - to be classified under various chapters like 73, 83, 84, 85 and 96, or classified under the heading 8708? - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in the case of SUZUKI MOROTS GUJARAT PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS C.C. -AHMEDABAD [2022 (6) TMI 1089 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] has held that The lower authorities have not examined the legal aspects properly to come to conclusion for correct classification of the goods in question. Hence in our considered view the matter needs to be remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals).
It is noticed that the said order takes note of the HSN Explanatory notes part (III) which lays down the criteria for classification of parts and accessories. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the impugned order does not take notice of this explanatory note. The criteria laid down by the impugned order does not correspond to the criteria laid down in the HSN Explanatory note.
The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (11) TMI 839
Levy of penalty on the customs broker under Regulation 14 read with Regulation 18 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 2013/2018 - ineligible drawback claimed - proof of mala fide and wilful misrepresentation by the customs broker or not - HELD THAT:- The impugned order though is an independent order issued in terms of the Customs House Licensing Regulations 2013/2018, the offence remains the same that ineligible drawback claimed by the exporter ADPL. In the impugned order, the enquiry officer in his report found that “It is seen from the facts of the case that the customs broker has informed the exporter about the non-availability of drawback and exporters have on their own violation opted to go for drawback under Section 75. As such, there is nothing forthcoming in the show-cause notice or the Order-in-Original that the customs broker has imparted any wrong information to the exporter. In fact, the allegation was that while they have given right caution to the exporter, they have not intimated the Department when the exporter chose to do the other way.
There are no specific case of failure to exercise due diligence in imparting information to their client. Hence, the charge of failure to comply with Regulation 10(e) cannot be held against the Customs Broker”. The Commissioner in the impugned order based on the findings of the inquiry officer held that “I concur with the enquiry officer that the allegation of violations of Regulation 10(e) as unsustainable since the said provision requires due diligence in imparting to the customer. In this case, the exporter was aware of the provisions and carried out the claim of drawback on their own violation and it is not coming out that the customs broker has advised wrongly.”
The Tribunal vide its Final Order had clearly held that since the exporter had challenged the eligible claim of drawback before the revisionary authority the matter was sub-judice and it also observed that the department had failed to prove that there is a mala fide and wilful misrepresentation by the customs broker and accordingly penalty was set aside on the set of facts of ineligible drawback claimed by the exporter.
Considering all these facts and taking into account the unblemished record of the customs broker as held by the Commissioner, the penalty imposed upon the appellant is set aside - The appeal is allowed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 838
Levy of Redemption fine while ordering re-export of the imported Titanium Powder - restricted goods or prohibited goods - HELD THAT:- What the original authority has missed is the application addressed to the DGFT, though belatedly, which only shows the bona fides of the appellant. When pointed out as to the requirement of licence, the appellant appears to have immediately made an application and there are no disputes that the said application is still pending with the DGFT and no order has yet been made on the said application.
The interests of justice would demand that the matter be remanded to the file of the adjudicating authority awaiting the response from the DGFT on the application made by the appellant and then, pass an appropriate speaking order based on any such communication from the DGFT on the application for import authorization of the restricted items made by the appellant - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (11) TMI 837
Continuance of proceedings under Customs Act - Effect of Initiation of CIRP proceedings and Approval of Resolution plan - abatement of the revenue appeal - whether the respondents are entitled to continue with the Appeals and claim relief after Order of NCLT approving the resolution plan has been passed? - HELD THAT:- The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/S. ALOK INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR AND COMMISSIONER OF CEN. EXCISE, MUMBAI CENTRAL [2022 (10) TMI 801 - CESTAT MUMBAI] analysed in detail Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and observed that aforesaid Rule 22 should be applicable the moment the successor interest with sufficient rights is appointed by NCLT to make an application for continuation of the proceeding.
Needless to mention, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts in a catena of cases that the Tribunal is a creature of the statute; it cannot travel beyond the express powers vested under the Statute or Rules framed under the statute while deciding a statutory Appeal filed before it against the Orders of the prescribed statutory authorities mentioned under the statute. The corollary, any order passed by the Tribunal beyond the vested powers under the statute would be non-est in law.
There are complete agreement with the view consistently expressed by this Tribunal in a series of cases that the appeal abates once the IRP is appointed and/or Resolution plan approved - all the appeals filed by the Revenue abates as per Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
-
2023 (11) TMI 836
Demand of duty foregone on the capital goods imported by the appellant - obtaining nine EPCG Authorizations for import of capital goods - failure to fulfil the export obligations - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the duty demand in respect of 8 Licences only for the reason that the appellant has not furnished the EODC. However, to establish that the appellant has fulfilled their export obligations, the Ld. Counsel has furnished all the EODCs (in respect of 8 Licences) - this is a fit case to remand to the adjudicating authority, who shall verify the EODCs furnished by the appellant and re-consider the matter afresh. Further, the appellant shall also be given reasonable opportunity of personal hearing and to furnish evidence.
The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority, who is directed to examine the EODCs furnished by the appellant and pass a speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (11) TMI 835
Denial of request for conversion of free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills - denial on the ground of non-declaration of entitlement of drawback on the shipping bill - HELD THAT:- Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, deals with the situation and clearly permits the amendment of shipping bill on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time of export of goods. Admittedly, there is no examination of documents is placed on record by adjudicating authority while considering the claim for conversion of free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills.
Admittedly, in this case, no document has been examined and drawback claim has been rejected without any observations. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and hold that in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, the appellant is entitled for conversion of free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills subject to verification of the documents, which were available at the time of export.
Matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority to examine the documents and thereafter to allow the conversion of free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills by keeping all others issues open - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (11) TMI 783
Valuation - Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) remained on board - conversion into domestic flight - Methodology adopted in computing assessable value on fuels - loading of the prices with 1% landing charges - 20% transportation cost - 1.125% of insurance - to be included to the transaction value for re-determining the duty liability or not - HELD THAT:- The Larger Bench in the case of Jet Airways [2021 (5) TMI 908 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)] held that No amount towards alleged transportation cost is required to be included in the value of remnant ATF under Rule 10(2) of the 2007 Rules for determining the transaction value under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act.
Therefore, the notional value of transportation under proviso to Rule 10(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 cannot be added to the transaction value. Based on the above observation of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, Tribunal in the case of JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT) , MUMBAI [2021 (12) TMI 971 - CESTAT MUMBAI] observed that in the transaction value, methods of valuation, these costs are irrelevant and extraneous and accordingly, held that the transaction value excludes the scope for addition of freight, insurance and landing charges to the cost of supply for discharge of duty liability on the fuel available on board upon conclusion of an international leg.
Thus, going by the reasoning for not adding the transportation charges, it is obvious that none of these charges can become part of transaction value as per Rule 10(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. This issue is no more res integra as it is settled in favour of the appellants in the case of Jet Airways India.
The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 773
Jurisdiction - Power of assessing authority u/s 28 of Customs Act to assess the IGST - Import of ‘Wet Dates’ (Processed dates) - Claim of exemption from payment of IGST under the Notification No.02/2017-Integrated tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - whether the order impugned in Exhibit P-1 is without jurisdiction and void ab initio? - HELD THAT:- Sub-section (15) of Section 2 defines duty which means customs duty. Section 28 empowers the assessing authority to assess and recover the duties not levied, not paid, short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded. Section 28 therefore is not only in respect of duty which means customs duty but, it is in respect of duties which may be applicable on imported item/goods. Even otherwise, the assessment order is defined under Sub-section 2 of Section 2 of the Customs Act empowers the assessing authority to determine the dutiability of any goods and the amount of duty/tax, cess or any sum so payable under the Customs Act or Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) or under any other law for the time being in force, with reference to exemption or concession of duty, tax, cess or any other sum, consequent upon any notification issued therefor under the said Act or under the Customs Tariff Act or under any other law for the time being in force.
The petitioner has claimed exemption from payment of IGST under the Notification No.02/2017-Integrated tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. Therefore, the competent authority is empowered to make assessment regarding claim of exemption from the IGST under Section 28 of the Act.
There are no substance in the writ petition. This writ petition appears to be wholly misconceived, and it is hereby dismissed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 730
Refusal of bail - offences under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 120B IPC - petitioner has been in custody for more than 15 months and also deposited the penalty amount which he was required to by the adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail subject to such terms and conditions as the Trial Court may impose including the one that he shall not contact the other accused.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (11) TMI 729
Seeking writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from adjudicating SCN - barred by limitation in terms of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 or not - conclusion of proceedings in view of second proviso of Section 28(9) of the Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- As per the facts given by the petitioner in the writ petition, the petitioner was aware about the notice dated 05.12.2022 (Annexure P-3) and, thereafter, adjournments were sought by the petitioner for personal hearing as well as for filing reply, as per details given in para No. 7 of the writ petition. The petitioner appeared for the first time for personal hearing on 01.02.2023 and it was made aware of the extension granted for adjudication of the case by Chief Commissioner of Customs under Section 28 (9) of the Act, 1962, vide letter dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure R-1).
The said facts clearly make out that it was on account of non-appearance of the petitioner that the matter was kept adjourned and the same was not concluded. As per the petitioner, it had placed on record the submissions dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure P-8) and additional submissions dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-9). These submissions were placed on record by the petitioner after the extension was granted vide letter dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure R-1) and since the petitioner itself has taken time, after issuance of notices both dated 28.01.2022 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) for filing reply, the delay cannot be attributed to the respondent for not adjudicating show cause notices. Moreover, the extension was rightly granted, keeping in view letter dated 09.12.2022 (Annexure P-12), placed on record by the petitioner.
There are no ground to entertain the present writ petition and restraining the respondents from adjudicating show cause notices is made out - petition dismissed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 728
Maintainability of petition - principles of Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court - Where the cause of action arisen? - Validity of notifications restricting benefit of exemption - Denial of exemption from customs duty on export of goods - Payment in cash instead of letter of credit as a pre-condition as per the notification - whether a cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen for exercise of power conferred under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India has been laid down, in various facts and circumstances, having universal application, in series of decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court?
HELD THAT:- In the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS ADANI EXPORTS LTD. [2001 (10) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT], somewhat similar facts as in the present case, had arisen for consideration. On facts, that was a case where claim of the benefit of the Passbook Scheme contained in Import Export Policy in relation to certain credits to be given on export of shrimps was involved. The respondents therein claimed benefit on the basis of export of prawns and import of the inputs. It was an admitted fact that the benefits, which the respondents therein were seeking, were to be extended through the port situated at Chennai. As those benefits were not admitted for various reasons, the respondents therein filed special civil applications before the High Court at Ahmedabad.
Had it been a case that the respondents have refused to grant the benefit of exemption from payment of customs duty only on the ground of payment through cash mode, it would have been an integral part of cause of action as the petitioner was required to prove this fact, unless traversed, to succeed in getting the relief sought in the writ petition. All other facts stated in the petition, indisputably, which otherwise could be treated as integral part of cause of action, even according to the petitioner, have arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
In the writ petition, it has been stated that a mail was sent for grant of clearance of goods, but the same has not been accepted. It has not even been averred categorically in the writ petition that the only operative reason was difference in mode of payment. It, therefore, appears that though the petitioner's grievance is mainly on account of non-clearance of goods despite fulfillment of the conditions incorporated in notification no. 50/2023-Customs dated 25.08.2023, on an assumption, without any factual basis, writ petition has been filed before this Court that benefit of exemption has been disallowed only on the basis of difference in mode of payment. Keeping that fine, but clear distinction as also applying the principle that the issue of territorial jurisdiction has to be decided on the pleadings as made in the writ petition, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case and the petitioner ought to have approached the appropriate forum.
The objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is sustained - the writ petition is dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
