LAWS(KER)-2018-7-618

V V MINERAL Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Decided On July 26, 2018
V V Mineral Appellant
V/S
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P2 and P3 dated 21.12.2016 and 22.12.2016 issued by the 1st and 2nd respondents, directing the petitioner to produce necessary certificates/documents viz., certificate of legally mined minerals from the concerned District Collector/transport permits along with bulk permits, certifying the legal source of such Beach Sand Minerals brought to the Customs Area for export, under Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962, and intimating the petitioner that it has been decided to verify the source, Beach Sand Minerals being sent for export, and requiring the petitioner to produce necessary documents secured from competent authority, respectively. Material facts required for the consideration of reliefs sought for in the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is a registered Partnership Firm established to carry on the business of separation and processing of beach sand minerals. The 1st and 2nd respondents are the jurisdictional authorities at the Cochin Port, amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. The 3rd respondent is the District Collector, Tirunelveli, who has addressed a letter to the Port authorities which was acted upon by the Customs Authorities. According to the petitioner, the query raised by the Customs Authorities on account of the same is illegal and without jurisdiction, attempting to interfere with free export of the petitioner's goods through the Cochin Port. Petitioner has been exporting its finished products (in the present case, 'natural garnet') through the Ports in Tamil Nadu, Andhra and Kerala.

(3.) In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging preexport restrictions/obligations sought to be imposed by the 1st and 2nd respondents, apparently at the behest of the 3rd respondent, which obligations/restrictions are completely without jurisdiction and extremely prejudicial, and if allowed to be implemented, will affect international free trade. The obligations/restrictions are also completely against the provisions of the Customs Act and the Foreign Trade Policy, which alone govern exports.