SUNIL JUGALKISHORE GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner doing business in the name and style of M/s. Sunil Sundeep Combines invokes article 226 of the Constitution to quash orders set out in Exhibits "P", "M" and "L" and seeks a direction to the respondents to permit him to sell and/or transfer the goods figuring in the petition vide proviso to Section 59(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 - hereinafter referred to as the "Act".

(2.) The points that arise for determination in this petition have to be considered in the background of the following :- In the period July to September 1982, petitioner imported stainless steel sheets and circles as per the particulars given in para 3 of the petition. Petitioner filed two bills of entry for warehousing of the consignment as required by Section 59 of the Act. After the bills of entry had undergone the requisite scrutiny, the imported goods were stored at the public warehouse under bonds at Wadala, Bombay. The permitted warehousing was for a period of one year ending with 4.10.1983. On 27.12.1983, petitioner moved two applications covering the two consignments for an extension of the bond period by three months. The ground advanced was that petitioner, in view of fantail difficulties, was not in a position to pay the duty and clear the goods. These two applications are at Exhibits "C-1" and "C-2". His financial difficulties not apparently having abated, petitioner entered into a transaction with M/s. Lalit Stainless Steel (India) Ltd., Kandla Free Trade Zone, Gandhidham. On 1.1.1985, the said Lalit Ltd. and petitioner moved an application seeking permission to effect a sale and/or transfer from the petitioner upto the Lalit Ltd. This letter was addressed to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Kandla Free Trade Zone. The said Officer on 1.2.1985 accorded a "no objection" to the proposed transfer. Thereafter the shipping bills were presented to respondent no. 4 whose scrutinising officer on 15.3.1985 directed the submission of the original insurance policy and also that the bond period had to be got extended. On 25.3.1985, two applications for extending the bond period for six months were moved. On 30.3.1985 petitioner executed two bonds anticipating an extension for the duration applied for. Petitioner and M/s. Lalit Ltd. in June and July 1985 supplied particulars and executed documents as required for securing the order for extension of the bond period. On 12.8.1985, petitioner received Exhibit "L"'s original. This, for the first time, indicated the view of the authorities that transfer to a duty-free port was not permissible, that the bond period could not be extended as the applications for extension were given after the expiry of the period of warehousing and that the bonders, in terms of the demand notice, had lost all privileges available under Chapter 9 of the Act. Accompanying Exhibit "L" was the detention notice under Section 72 of the Act and marked Exhibit "M". Petitioner made a representation protesting against the action taken and this representation was addressed to the Central Board of Excise & Customs. As the powers of the Board had been delegated to respondent no. 3, the said representation was transferred upto him for consideration and disposal. Respondent no. 3 on 16.10.1985 rejected the representation vide the original of Exhibit "P".

(3.) It is petitioners contention that the respondents were in error in refusing to extend the duration of the bond and to refuse permission to effect a transfer in favour of Lalit Ltd. as desired by him. Hence this petition for the quashing of Exhibits "L", "M" and "P" and for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to effect an inter-bond transfer of the goods in question to Lalit Ltd. within eight weeks from the date of the disposal of the present petition.