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

1991 (4) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to Rs. 4,26,200/-. The petitioner paid the assessed duty. Subsequently the said scrap was examined by the Customs Authorities and it was found that there were several buttons/pieces of snap fasteners lying mixed with the said scrap. The total quantity of the buttons/snap fasteners was found to be 1,211.7 kgs. Upon being asked for an explanation regarding the presence of the buttons/snap fasteners, the petitioner filed a certificate given by the foreign suppliers with the Customs Authorities, under cover of a letter dated 14-12-1990. In the letter the petitioner stated that the buttons/snap fasteners were in fact brass scrap as they were not in good condition and did not form complete sets and could not be utilised for any purpose other than .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ap fasteners were in fact scrap and fulfilled the specifications laid down by the Institute of Scrap Re-cycling Industries, Washington. It is further contended that the buttons/snap fasteners were "waste and scrap" within the definition in Section Note No. 6(a) of Section XV of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is pointed out that the Respondent No. 1 had admitted that the condition of the said buttons/snap fasteners was not good. (iii) Having given the petitioner the option to clear the buttons/snap fasteners after mutilation of the same, there was no warrant for the Respondent No. 1 either imposing any redemption fine or levying any penalty. 4. The petitioner has relied upon the following decisions to contend that there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Section 119 of the 1962 Act. (IV) The impugned order was reasonable and if the petitioner was aggrieved by the same, the petitioner could have recourse to the alternative remedy available to it under the 1962 Act. 6. The cases cited by the petitioner are authorities for the proposition that the Court will interfere with the order of quasi-judicial authority such as the Respondent No, 1 under Article 226 of the Constitution provided the circumstances so warrant. In this case there are ample grounds for interference with the impugned order. 7. It is apparent from a reading of the impugned order that the Respondent No. 1 has proceeded on an erroneous assumption of fact. Furthermore the Respondent No. 1 has not applied his mind at all t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e mutilated to the satisfaction of the Customs department before release to the petitioner could not at the same time direct redemption of the same by payment of fine of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs). 13. Section 24 of the 1962 Act provides as follows :- 24. Power to make rules for denaturing or mutilation of goods. - The Central Government may make rules for permitting at the request of the owner the denaturing or mutilation of imported goods which are ordinarily used for more than one purpose so as to render them unfit for one or more of such purposes and where any goods are so denatured or mutilated they shall be chargeable to duty at such rate as would be applicable if the goods had been imported in the denatured or mutilated form. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... impugned order cannot be sustained. However, even if I set aside the impugned order the Respondent No. 1 will have to re-adjudicate the matter. 17. At the same time the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the reason for the detention of the said scrap including the buttons/snap fasteners is wrong. In the circumstances I dispose of the writ petition by the following order :- (I) The impugned order dated 10th January, 1991 is set aside. (II) The petitioner will deposit in cash with the Collector of Customs, Calcutta or furnish a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) and an I.T.C. Bond for Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs). The Bank Guarantee must be in favour of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The Bank Guar .....

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