TERAI OVERSEAS LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant, the Assistant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Calcutta Zonal Unit, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as Applicant) has, by the instant application, prayed the Court for leave to be added as a Party-Respondent to the instant Writ Proceedings and/or to be allowed to intervene in the instant Writ Proceedings, along with some other prayers made therein, contending, inter alia, that he has a direct interest in the subject matter of the goods in question which were attempted to be exported by the Writ Petitioner, M/s. Terai Overseas Limited (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner), in the facts and circumstances stated therein.

(2.) It is contended by the Applicant that if the goods in question are allowed to be examined by him in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 A of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) it would clearly reveal that the Petitioner had attempted to export the same, which do not match the description and/or declaration given before the Customs Authorities in the Shipping Bills submitted by it (Petitioner). Such examination would show that the Petitioner had deliberately declared and over-invoiced the said goods and had attempted to export the same illegally under a claim of drawback out of India in contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, making the same (goods) liable to confiscation thereunder. It is neither open to the Petitioner to take back the goods which were attempted to be exported before allowing the Applicant to examine the same under the aforesaid provisions. It is further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated December 19,1995 had given liberty to "the parties to take appropriate directions from the Trial Court where the Writ Petition is pending and the Trial Court will pass such order as it may deem proper without being influenced by any order or direction contained in the impugned order." Hence the instant application by the Applicant for being added as a party to the instant Writ Proceedings, since he is not only a proper party but a necessary party herein, and it is necessary and proper that the Writ Application be decided in his presence.

(3.) The application made by the Applicant is supported by the Respondents. It had been submitted by Mr. Sibdas Banerjee, the learned Counsel for the contending Respondents, that, in the facts and circumstances submitted on behalf of the Applicant, the Writ Application should be decided in his presence.