INDO EXIM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions raise common issues arising out of similar fact situations and relating to identical licences and, therefore, are being disposed of together by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that although it held a valid value based Duty Free Advance Licence for the import of goods specified therein, it was not permitted to import the said goods (in this case 'Brass Scrap') without payment of duty. The brief facts are that a duty free licence was issued to Amity International, New Delhi. The licence was transferable and the same was transferred to the petitioner on 29.01.1996. In the meanwhile, the licence had been revalidated upto 21.06.1996. The port of registration in the licence was mentioned as 'Mumbai'. The petitioners' goods arrived in Delhi on different dates and, therefore, the petitioners sought transfer release advices from the customs authorities for the clearance of the goods at Delhi under the licence without payment of duty. This was refused by the customs authorities citing the ground that the original licence had been obtained by Amity International on misrepresentation of certain facts. In fact, the only ground taken by the respondents, i.e., the customs authorities in this case, is set out in paragraph 5 of their counter-affidavit in CW3388/1996, which is also relied upon in the other writ petition, i.e., and, which reads CW1256/1997, as under:-

(3.) From the above, it is clear that the only reason for the customs authorities in not releasing the goods of the petitioners without payment of duty was that the licences had been obtained upon misrepresentation. It is pertinent to note here that by an order dated 13.11.1996, this Court had permitted the petitioners to have the goods released on assessment of value by the customs authorities and payment of duty as leviable in accordance with law. The petitioners got the goods released on payment of duty as was calculated by the customs authorities. The petitioners' grievance is that since they held valid value based duty free advance licences, the goods ought to have been permitted to be imported without payment of duty. The fact that duty has been charged from them for the release of the same goods, necessitates refund of the same to the petitioners. The petitioners have also, although not specifically prayed for in the petitions, requested that the licences be revalidated for a further period of one year.