Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2021 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 179 - MADRAS HIGH COURTMaintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Import of goods - refractory bricks - freely importable or restricted imports - period for filing statutory appeal - interpretation of the policy N/N. 45/2015-2020 dated 31.01.2020 issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade - Clarification by DGFT vide Trade Notice No.8/2020-2021, dated 04.05.2020 - goods confiscated without issuance of SCN - Principles of natural justice. HELD THAT:- The issue turns on an interpretation of the policy notification issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade. The customs authority on its own ought not to have interpreted as to whether the goods in question can be called as restricted items. The respondent ought to have sought a clarification directly from the concerned authority in DGFT. In the alternative, the respondent could have mandated the petitioner to move the competent authority under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and obtain a clarification. Instead of doing so, the respondent applied his own understanding of the policy notification. What the respondent has done is not in accordance with Section 17 of the Customs Act - However, vide notification No.45/2015-2020 dated 31.01.2020, the Director General of Foreign Trade prohibited import of “stock lot”. Issue arose as to what was meant by this expression. Thereafter, clarification was provided by DGFT vide Trade Notice No.8/2020-2021, dated 04.05.2020 - The Trade Notice has clarified that If the whole imported paper consignment is without description for each category of paper, it is a stock lot. The respondent should have adopted a similar approach in this case - He could have contacted the other port authorities and ascertained the position - He could have moved the competent authority in DGFT and obtained clarification. Without doing so, he chose to straightaway pass the impugned order. This is clearly unfair as well as violation of Section 17 of the Customs Act. Principles of Natural Justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is also violative of the principles of natural justice. The order of confiscation has been passed without issuing show cause notice - It is true that the petitioner has called upon the respondent to finalise the issue without show cause notice or personal hearing. But a careful reading of the contents of the petitioner's letter dated 06.08.2018 would show that since according to him there is no policy violation, he wanted the goods to be cleared without any delay. But the respondent had a different perception. They were not on the same page. There was a fundamental divergence in the stand taken by the two. Therefore, the respondent ought to have followed the procedure laid down in Section 124 of the Act. Section 124 is couched in imperative terms. The matter is remitted to the file of the respondent to pass order afresh in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand.
|