Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1996 (11) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1996 (11) TMI 67 - SC - Customs


  1. 2015 (8) TMI 56 - SC
  2. 2003 (7) TMI 73 - SC
  3. 2024 (1) TMI 538 - HC
  4. 2023 (6) TMI 714 - HC
  5. 2021 (2) TMI 842 - HC
  6. 2021 (2) TMI 93 - HC
  7. 2020 (3) TMI 204 - HC
  8. 2020 (3) TMI 203 - HC
  9. 2020 (1) TMI 441 - HC
  10. 2017 (1) TMI 748 - HC
  11. 2016 (11) TMI 465 - HC
  12. 2014 (12) TMI 1052 - HC
  13. 2014 (9) TMI 287 - HC
  14. 2011 (1) TMI 22 - HC
  15. 2010 (11) TMI 238 - HC
  16. 2010 (8) TMI 434 - HC
  17. 2010 (7) TMI 456 - HC
  18. 2010 (2) TMI 306 - HC
  19. 2009 (4) TMI 83 - HC
  20. 2006 (1) TMI 145 - HC
  21. 2003 (12) TMI 73 - HC
  22. 2003 (7) TMI 78 - HC
  23. 2000 (6) TMI 37 - HC
  24. 1998 (4) TMI 149 - HC
  25. 2024 (10) TMI 335 - AT
  26. 2024 (5) TMI 838 - AT
  27. 2023 (12) TMI 388 - AT
  28. 2023 (8) TMI 1004 - AT
  29. 2023 (5) TMI 49 - AT
  30. 2022 (9) TMI 1300 - AT
  31. 2022 (11) TMI 59 - AT
  32. 2022 (8) TMI 720 - AT
  33. 2022 (6) TMI 432 - AT
  34. 2021 (11) TMI 126 - AT
  35. 2020 (1) TMI 766 - AT
  36. 2020 (2) TMI 437 - AT
  37. 2020 (3) TMI 922 - AT
  38. 2019 (7) TMI 108 - AT
  39. 2019 (4) TMI 1709 - AT
  40. 2019 (4) TMI 1963 - AT
  41. 2019 (1) TMI 1449 - AT
  42. 2018 (12) TMI 671 - AT
  43. 2018 (11) TMI 354 - AT
  44. 2017 (9) TMI 135 - AT
  45. 2017 (2) TMI 133 - AT
  46. 2016 (10) TMI 441 - AT
  47. 2016 (3) TMI 221 - AT
  48. 2016 (2) TMI 538 - AT
  49. 2015 (12) TMI 1045 - AT
  50. 2015 (4) TMI 730 - AT
  51. 2015 (2) TMI 417 - AT
  52. 2015 (2) TMI 552 - AT
  53. 2014 (5) TMI 789 - AT
  54. 2013 (12) TMI 1301 - AT
  55. 2013 (6) TMI 694 - AT
  56. 2013 (10) TMI 727 - AT
  57. 2013 (1) TMI 727 - AT
  58. 2012 (7) TMI 640 - AT
  59. 2013 (9) TMI 176 - AT
  60. 2011 (10) TMI 36 - AT
  61. 2012 (11) TMI 209 - AT
  62. 2011 (6) TMI 276 - AT
  63. 2010 (10) TMI 882 - AT
  64. 2010 (8) TMI 345 - AT
  65. 2009 (5) TMI 434 - AT
  66. 2009 (5) TMI 512 - AT
  67. 2008 (11) TMI 407 - AT
  68. 2008 (9) TMI 221 - AT
  69. 2008 (8) TMI 73 - AT
  70. 2006 (5) TMI 210 - AT
  71. 2006 (2) TMI 55 - AT
  72. 2005 (10) TMI 128 - AT
  73. 2005 (10) TMI 112 - AT
  74. 2005 (5) TMI 172 - AT
  75. 2004 (11) TMI 233 - AT
  76. 2004 (11) TMI 234 - AT
  77. 2004 (9) TMI 178 - AT
  78. 2003 (4) TMI 168 - AT
  79. 2003 (1) TMI 399 - AT
  80. 2003 (1) TMI 327 - AT
  81. 2002 (8) TMI 619 - AT
  82. 2001 (6) TMI 339 - AT
  83. 2001 (1) TMI 548 - AT
  84. 2001 (1) TMI 392 - AT
  85. 1997 (5) TMI 193 - AT
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Customs authorities to conduct search and seizure operations related to imported raw materials under Duty Exemption Scheme.
2. Interpretation of Exemption Notification conditions and its violation by the appellants.
3. Authority of licensing authority versus Customs authorities to investigate alleged violations.
4. Applicability of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act in cases of breach of conditions of import licenses.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a writ petition filed by a company seeking to prohibit Customs authorities from conducting search and seizure operations on their premises related to imported raw materials under the Duty Exemption Scheme. The Customs authorities alleged that the company violated conditions of an Exemption Notification by selling or disposing of the materials, justifying their actions.

2. The Exemption Notification issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act specified conditions, including the prohibition on selling or disposing of the exempted materials. The company argued that only the licensing authority had jurisdiction to investigate violations of their advance licenses incorporating the Notification's terms, excluding Customs authorities from such inquiries.

3. The company relied on Import and Export Policy provisions and the Hand Book of Procedures, emphasizing that the licensing authority was empowered to investigate cases of material misuse, excluding Customs authorities. However, the Court found no indication in the policies that Customs authorities were barred from investigating breaches or that only the licensing authority had jurisdiction.

4. The Court referred to Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, which allows confiscation of goods exempted subject to conditions if the conditions are violated. The Court concluded that the breach of the Exemption Notification conditions, leading to the disposal of materials, empowered Customs authorities to take action under Section 111(o).

5. Despite arguments citing the Central Board of Excise and Customs' communication on license condition breaches, the Court held that the breach of Exemption Notification terms, entitling the company to duty exemption, fell under Section 111(o) jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding Customs authorities' power to investigate and take action in such cases.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates