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

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (4) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... udgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 4.10.10 (Civil Writ Petition No. 13070/2009) does not direct the respondent / Commissioner to adjudicate upon and determine competiting claims regarding title to the seized gold jewellery. It is a trite legal principle that adjudicating power is essentially a legislated grant and is not to be inferred as a derivative of a curial decree. Learned Counsel for the appellant, for the respondent SBI and learned DR fairly concede the position that neither the respondent/ Commissioner nor this Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine, in the circumstances of this case, whether the seized goods belong to either the appellant; to M/s. Vee Ess Jewellers; or to the State Bank of India, under the hypothecatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l is invalidation of the impugned order and permission to the appellant to re-export the seized goods. 3. Since the appeal could be disposed off on a short point of jurisdiction, we decline to go into merits of competing claims as to title to the assorted gold jewellery, the commodity involved. 4. On receiving information from DRI, New Delhi that certain companies in India, Dubai and Singapore were misusing the SEZ scheme and importing new and high end, branded gold jewellery, mis-declaring it as old jewellery for repair, assembly etc. and were exporting metal scrap to fulfill export obligations, Revenue officers searched factory premises of M/s. Vee Ess Jewelers in NOIDA, SEZ and in Karol Bagh, New Delhi, on 6.2.2009. Assorted gold j .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ounsel for the parties and in view of the totality of circumstances, we are only inclined to direct that the Commissioner, the respondent no. 1 herein, shall dispose of the representations which have been submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the law. It is open to the petitioner to raise all possible contentions as permissible in law. The Commissioner shall dispose of the representation within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of order passed today. Liberty is granted to either of the parties to produce a copy of this order before the Commissioner of Customs or that the said authority can proceed accordingly. (emphasis is added). Needless to say, the Commissioner shall pass an order ascribing cogent reason, so that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tribunal, under provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act and the SARFESI Act, for realization of dues from M/s. Vee Ess Jewellers, by attachment and sale of the goods in issue, which are currently under the custody of the Union of India, pursuant to proceedings initiated against the appellant and M/s. Vee Ess Jewellers, under provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 11. Suffice it to record that by the impugned order, the learned Commissioner concluded that the seized goods i.e. assorted gold jewellery is not liable for confiscation under the Customs Act read with the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009. 12. As far as we are advised at the Bar, no appeal was preferred against this finding of learned Commissi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ess Jewellers having title to these goods. Resolution of competiting claims to the goods, by the appellant on the one hand and M/s. Vee Ess Jewellers and the respondent SBI, on the other, necessarily requires M/s. Vee Ess Jewellers to be a party to these proceedings. 16. It is axiomatic that there is no provision under the Customs Act, 1962 which authorizes adjudicating authorities under this Act to decide competing claims of title to goods which are the subject matter proceedings under the Act,. Adjudication and determination of competiting claims of title to goods which are subject to proceedings under the Customs Act is nevertheless outside the purview and jurisdiction of authorities under the Customs Act, 1962. We also perceive that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates