Calcutta High Court
Impex Metal & Ferro Alloys Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 February, 2015
Author: I. P. Mukerji
Bench: I. P. Mukerji
ORDER SHEET
WP NO.1057 OF 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
IMPEX METAL & FERRO ALLOYS LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
............
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI Date : 3rd February, 2015.
Mr. A. K. Chowdhury...appears.
Mr. R. Bharadwaj...appears.
The Court : The writ petitioner challenges the order dated 30th September, 2014 of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Drawback Department [Port].
Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that this matter has to be heard by this court and appropriate orders passed. On the other hand, Mr. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the respondents takes the point that the petitioner has an adequate remedy in the Appellate forum provided under the Customs Act, 1962. The questions are highly disputed and this court should not go into these disputed questions of facts.
The order made by the Deputy Commissioner, in my opinion, has become a little vulnerable because of the finding at internal page 5 of the order to the following effect :
"I find that in the provisions of the Act, supra, the two very important aspects to be fulfilled are that:
i] the goods should be capable of being easily identified; ii] to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs.
In the present case, I find that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs at the point of export has not been fully satisfied that the identity of the goods has been established. It has been clearly stated in the examination report dated 14.9.2012, that 'identity of the goods could not be established in authentic manner'. Since the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs at the point of export is the proper persons to establish the identity of the re-2
exported goods, vis-à-vis the imported goods; his examination report is final and irrevocable. He is the person who has to be satisfied as to the identity of the goods, and when he is not satisfied, fully and without doubt, then the whole claim becomes non-sustainable."
Now, Mr. Chowdhury shows me a report dated 14th September, 2012 prepared by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs [Haldia Dock]. If one goes by the date mentioned in the impugned order one tends to form the opinion that this report of 14th September, 2012 has been referred to therein. The quoted words cannot be found in this report.
The report states otherwise - "However, identity of the goods has been established as per stencilled description of the goods in both import & export consignment. But, not in authentic manner, as because the party has declared the descriptions of the goods in both import & export documents as 'HIGH CARBON FERRO MANGANESE'. Whereas, stencilled descriptions were shown as 'FEMN, SOUTH AFRICA' in both import & export goods".
For this solitary reason, the matter has to be re-examined by the Deputy Commissioner. The impugned order dated 30th September, 2014 is set aside with a direction upon the same Deputy Commissioner to hear the petitioner and the department and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks of communication of this order.
The writ petitioner will make a request as soon as possible regarding the copies of documents they require. If any document has not been provided by the Customs department to the writ petitioner, it should be made over as soon as possible. This exercise should be undergone immediately so that the hearing before the adjudicator is not held up in any respect.
As no affidavit in opposition has been filed the allegations, if any, contained in the petition are not deemed to have been admitted.
This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(I. P. MUKERJI, J.)
Pkd.
A.R.[C.R.]
3