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

2006 (11) TMI 223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ibunal in view of the condition provided in the Hand Book of Import-Export and Procedure of Government of India, 1985-88, that the exchange bank of authorised dealer whom the letter of credit is opened is considered as a joint holder of license to the extent of goods covered by the credit before the Appellate Tribunal ? 2.1 The detailed facts that are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are : 249.4 Metric Tonnes of what was declared as "Stainless Steel Defective Circles" were imported from Korea in May - June 1982 in the name of M/s. Indian Steel Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') claiming that the same were covered by ten import licenses issued during the period 1981-82. The declared value of the goods was Rs.18,19,102/-. The import licenses relied on by the importer are : 1. P/L/2899510/31-3-1981 2. P/L/2902451/1-1-1982 3. P/L/2902519/14-1-1982 4. P/L/2902163/28-12-1981 5. P/L/2902509/12-1-1982 6. P/L/2902510/12-1-1982 7. P/L/2902454/1-1-1982 8. P/L/2902453/1-1-1982 9. P/L/2902180/30-12-1981 10. P/L/0456336/11-9-1981 2.2 On inspection by the Customs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce with the said scale of rates and also for issuance of detention certificate. After the receipt of the show cause notice dated 15-10-1982 issued under Section 124 of the Act, he filed another Writ Petition (C) No. 2 of 1983 invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India questioning the validity of the show cause notice. 2.6 All the above mentioned writ petitions, viz., Writ Petition (C) No. 8168 of 1982 and Writ Petition (C) No. 2 of 1983 as well as the Civil Appeals Nos.1693 and 1694 of 1984 were heard together by the Apex Court and were disposed of by a common order dated 11-10-1996. 2.7 The Apex Court while disposing of the above writ petitions and the civil appeals, observed that the department had a huge claim of arrears of income-tax and the Madras Port Trust also claimed for demurrage charges, as well as the appellant herein, viz., the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, also put forward a claim contending that inasmuch as it had financed the said importer, the appellant Bank is entitled to be repaid. In the face of these rival claims, the Apex Court, by an order dated 21-6-1983 directed the sale of the imported goods by appointing three joint receivers, viz., Shri. Jayaram .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... which is an affidavit dated 24-2-1984, the same stand denying his connection with the Corporation as well as the import of the goods in question and added that, whatever the affidavits he had signed and filed in the impugned proceedings therein were made at the instance of his employers, Didwanias. 2.10 In the light of the averments stated in the above statements, the Department came up with a petition in CM.P.No. 27299 of 1983 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8780 of 1982, which was subsequently re-numbered as Civil Appeal No.1693 of 1984 for prosecuting the members of Didwania group together with certain officials of Lakhsmi Vilas Bank for various offences under the Indian Penal Code. 2.11 On the other hand, the appellant herein represented by his counsel Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, stated that the bank had already filed a suit against the said Kumar, Didwanias and the Department for recovery of the amount due to them. The Madras Agencies, who is the purchaser of the imported goods, contended before the Apex Court that since there was an inordinate delay in confirming the sale and the delivery of the goods, the purchaser is entitled to the interest on the earnest money paid and also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g on 27-2-1998. But on that date, the appellant herein representing through its Manager and the consultant sought a hearing as an intervenor. The notice issued to the Corporation and its proprietor, was returned undelivered and the appellant was permitted to be heard as an intervenor on 27-2-1998. After the full-fledged adjudication, the Commissioner passed an order dated 6-3-1998 confirming the demand of Customs duty to the tune of Rs. l,38,72,807/- on the imported goods and also imposed a redemption fine of equal amount in lieu of confiscation of the goods, apart from a penalty imposed to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.25,000/- on A. Kumar and the corporation respectively under Section 112 of the Act. 3.2 Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner, the Lakshmi Vilas Bank preferred an appeal before the CESTAT, who by an order dated 30-4-2004 held that the appeal preferred by the appellant is not maintainable in law as they are not the person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 129A of the Act. Hence, the present appeal. 4.1 Mr.T.K. Seshadri , learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Bank contends that the appellant Bank, having been heard as an inte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... etitions and the civil appeals, referred to above. 5.2 The learned Additional Solicitor General invited our attention to the finding rendered by the Apex Court on the claim of the appellant Bank that the bank had already filed a suit against the Corporation and its proprietor and the appellant Bank has to work out its right only in that suit. Therefore, the appellant has no locus standi to be heard in the confiscation proceedings initiated under Section 124 of the Act, much less, to agitate against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs dated 6-3-1998 by preferring an appeal before the CESTAT under Section 129A of the Act. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions of both sides. 7. Since both the substantial questions of law referred to above are inter-related, viz., on the point whether the appellant Bank is a person aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs dated 6-3-1998 to prefer an appeal under Section 129A of the Act before the CESTAT, they are considered and disposed of jointly as hereunder. 8. In this regard, it is apt to refer Sections 124 and 129A of the Act, which read as follows :- "Section 124. Issue of show caus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hout option having been given to the owner of the goods to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125; or (ii) in any disputed case, other than a case where the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of Customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment is in issue or is one of the points in issue, the difference in duty involved or the duty involved; or (iii) the amount of fine or penalty determined by such order, does not exceed fifty thousand rupees. (emphasis supplied) 9.1 For the purpose of understanding the meaning of the expression "person aggrieved", we are obliged to refer the dictionary meaning of the same in this connection. 9.2 In Collin's English Dictionary, the word 'aggrieved' has been defined to mean "to ensure unjustly especially by infringing a person's legal rights", in Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition at page 28, aggrieved person is defined to mean "subjected to ill-treatment, feeling an injury or injustice. Injured, as by legal decision adversely infringing upon one's rights". In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 5th Edn., Vol. 1, pages 83-84, pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a person is aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on him. The meaning of the words "a person aggrieved" is sometimes given a restricted meaning in certain statutes which provide remedies for the protection of private legal rights. The restricted meaning requires denial or deprivation of legal rights." (emphasis supplied) In the above said decision of the Apex Court, Justice Beg, concurring with the majority view, held that to claim locus standi and as the person affected by the results of a proceeding, there should necessarily be a lis or a dispute. Lis implies the conception of an issue joined between two parties. 10.4 In Thammanna v. K.Veera Reddy - (1980) 4 SCC 62 : AIR 1981 SC 116, the Apex Court, while defining the meaning of the expression "person aggrieved", held as follows : "Although the meaning of the expression "person aggrieved" may vary according to the context of the statute and the facts of the case, nevertheless, normally, a "person aggrieved" must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrongfully affected his title to something. The Apex Court thus held as follows :- ".. a statutory remedy is provided to the Collector of Customs in connection with orders of the Appellate Collector of Customs passed immediately before the appointed day and also in connection with the orders passed by Collector of Customs under Section 128A, to direct proper officer to appeal on his behalf as Central Board of Excise and customs against the orders of Collectors of Customs as provided by Section 129DA(1) as well as on the Central Government under contingencies contemplated by Section 129DD(1). These are the only statutory modes contemplated by the Act by resort to which the orders of Collector (Customs) could be brought in challenge before higher statutory authorities including the CEGAT. In the light of this statutory scheme, therefore, it is not possible to agree with the contention of learned Counsel for the contesting respondents that sub-section (l) of Section 129A entitles any and every person feeling aggrieved by the decision or order of the Collector of Customs as an adjudicating authority, to pre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under the Customs Act in a matter relating to the confiscation proceedings of the imported goods, held that the bank is deemed to be the owner within the meaning of Sections 124 and 125 of the Act. Even, in the said decision, Justice Mohan, as he then was, has observed that the object of the Customs Act is only to see that there is no illegal importation of goods and the various policies under the Import Trade control are enunciated with reference to the economic conditions of the country and one cannot claim an inviolable right with regard to importation. In the said decision, it was not in dispute that the documents were drawn to the order of the shipper and endorsed in favour of the Bank for collection after presentation to the importer and as the importer refused to honour the documents on presentation and informed the Customs Authorities that he had no intention to clear the goods, the Customs Authorities initiated adjudication proceedings against the importer and ultimately the imported goods were seized and the importer was given option to redeem under Section 125 of the Act. Thus, while dealing with a case where the goods were imported according to law, it was held by Just .....

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