TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to seize the said consignment and to register a case as done in the present case by Exts. P12 and P14. - Decided in favor of appellant / assessee and against the revenue. - W.P. (C) Nos. 10983 and 25547 of 2012 (W) - - - Dated:- 14-11-2012 - K. Surendra Mohan, J. Shri Pirappancode V.S. Sudhir, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Tojan J. Vathikulam, Advocate, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The subject matter of these two writ petitions are the same and therefore, they are considered and disposed of together. WP (C) No. 10983/2012 is treated as the leading case. The parties as well as the documents produced are referred to in the order in which they are described in the said writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company represented by its Regional Manager. The petitioner had obtained licence for transporting Imported Cargo from one Airport to another as per the terms of Ext. P1 agreement entered into with the President of India. As per the terms of Ext. P1 agreement, the petitioner is entrusted with the work of transporting Imported Cargo in containers/trucks between one Airport to another Airport. Ext. P2 Circular issued by the Government of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was detained by the State Excise Officials. Though all the documents were produced before the officials, the truck as well as the consignments were taken into custody. The seals affixed by the Customs Officials were broke open and samples of the liquor that was being transported were taken. A crime was registered as Crime No. 36/12 under Section 55(a) and 67B of the Abkari Act. The driver of the petitioner was taken into custody. It was only after 21 days of detention that he was able to obtain bail. 5. Though the petitioner had sought for interim custody of the goods, he was not granted the same. As per Ext. P11 the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Thiruvananthapuram apprising him of the real state of affairs and requesting him for the release of the cargo to the petitioner. However, there was no response to Ext. P11. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking appropriate orders in the matter. 6. WP (C) No. 25547/2012 is filed by the driver of the vehicle seeking similar reliefs. In WP (C) No. 10983/2012, as per an interim order dated 11-6-2012 the consignment of liquor that was seized, was released to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also considered the rival contentions advanced by the counsel anxiously. 11. The only contention put forward in justification of the impugned action is that it was necessary for the petitioner to have obtained a permit under the Kerala Liquor Transit Rules, 1975 before transporting the goods. Since the Foreign Made Foreign Liquor was transported without a transport permit, an offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act was made out. 12. Section 57 of the Customs Act, 1962 ( Customs Act for short) permits the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs to appoint public warehouses wherein dutiable goods may be deposited. As per Sec. 58 of the Customs Act, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or the Deputy Commissioner of Customs is empowered to licence private warehouses wherein dutiable goods imported by or on behalf of the licensee may be deposited. The deposit contemplated by Sec. 58 is subject to the execution of a warehousing bond under Section 59 of the Customs Act. The goods so deposited are subject to the control of the proper officer under Sec. 62. The owner of the goods so deposited can deal with the said goods only with the sanction of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... warehouses. Such goods do not come within the scope of Rule 3 extracted above, for the simple reason that they are not liquor being transported from one place in the State to another. In other words, the liquor in a bonded warehouse is not liquor that has come into the territory of our country. They can be said to have been imported into the country only after they are cleared, by paying the Customs Duty payable on them. By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the Excise Officials have any jurisdiction over liquor that has not been imported into the country. 14. The transport of goods from one bonded warehouse to another bonded warehouse is done under the proper control of Customs officials. In the present case, the transport of liquor was effected under proper documents as evident from paragraph 2 of the statement filed by the sixth respondent. The list of documents stated to have been seized from the driver of the vehicle includes all the necessary official documents issued by the Customs authorities in compliance with Sec. 67 of the Customs Act as well as the Goods Imported (Conditions of Transshipment) Regulations, 1995. The State Excise authorities therefore had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
