9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugust, 2007. 2. Now, this licence was transferable. This could be transferred by the writ petitioner to any person provided the customs authorities issued a "telegraphic release advice". This"telegraphic release advice", as I have understood, is nothing but a confirmation or a no objection by them regarding such transfer. 3. This licence entitles the writ petitioner to duty benefit to the extent of Rs. 9,47,615/- for importation of goods specified in the licence itself. It appears from the records that duty benefit initially granted was Rs. 10,04,307/-. Thereafter, at the intervention of the customs, it was reduced to Rs. 9,47,615/-. 4. The writ petitioner intended to transfer this licence in favour of Telco Construction Equipment Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fault of the writ petitioner. Further, Clause-4.50 of the Handbook of Procedures (1-9-2004 to 31-3-2009) of the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Government of India says that no revalidation of licence could be made unless it expires in the custody of the licensing/customs authorities. Hence, according to him, there is no question of revalidation of the licence. He has also referred to two cases, (i) Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of I reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 626 (S.C.) (Paragraphs-9 and 10) and (ii) Collector of Customs v. Pankaj V. Sheth reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 31 (Paragraphs-23 and 24). According to him, on a reading of the decisions, when an import or export has been made wrongfully, the customs authorities do hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, at all, any import or export, such question can be gone into by the customs authorities as held by the decision of the Supreme Court and our High Court, discussed earlier to determine, inter alia, duty entitlement, If viewed in this light, the decision of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court fits very harmoniously with the other two decisions of our Division Bench and the Supreme Court. 8. But here, the facts are very important. This licence was granted on 16th July, 2004. Thereafter, some enquiry was made by the above licensing authority and the customs, as would appear from a communication of the licensing authority dated 16th July, 2004 being Annexure P of the writ petition. Further, it appears that the customs made an enquiry on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se advice" from the customs authroities. By reason of this action of the customs authorities, this transfer could not be made. 14. The licence expired sometime in 2007. 15. If a governmental or statutory authority has to take any action against a particular person, it has to take it within the time stipulated by law or if no time is stipulated, in that event, within a reasonable time. Such action has to be taken in such time, adopting the correct procedure, otherwise, the action becomes bad and is wrongful in the eye of law. In those circumstances, the action of the customs authorities in denying "telegraphic release advice" is, thus, wrongful. But the licence has expired and as rightly pointed out by Mr. Vinay Mishra, learned Advocate ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
