Bombay High Court
Sureka Coated Tubes & Sheets Ltd. vs Union Of India on 24 April, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1991(56)ELT289(BOM)
Author: S.P. Bharucha
Bench: S.P. Bharucha
JUDGMENT Bharucha, J.
1. This writ petition impugns three query memos issued by the Customs authorities to the petitioners in respect of certain imports made by them.
2. The petitioners manufacture steel scaffolding tubes and use for that purpose secondary steel sheets, coils, strips, coated and uncoated. On 10th November 1988 a concern in Japan, Titanco Anslat, placed upon the petitioners a purchase order for 5,000 MTs. of newly rolled galvanised welded steel scaffolding tubes of the FOB value of Rs. 4,25,00,000/-. On 9th January 1989 the petitioners applied to the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports for the grant of an advance licence to enable them to import the raw-material aforementioned. On 22nd February 1989 the petitioners were issued an advance licence which entitled them to import 4,882 MTs. of "secondary sheets/coils/strips, coated/uncoated" of an aggregate value of Rs. 2,65,95,000/- and certain zinc ingots, with which we are not concerned. Under the terms of the licence the petitioners were required to export 5,000 MTs. of coated steel scaffolding tubes of the FOB value of Rs. 4,25,00,000/- within a period of 9 months commencing on the expiry of 30 days after the date of import of the first consignment. The petitioners were also issued a Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate which referred to the goods to be imported as "Secondary sheets/coils/strips, coated/uncoated".
3. The petitioners manufactured the resultant product and exported a part of the same. Necessary entries in the DEEC book were made and the petitioners became entitled to import 1,196,53 MTs. of the steel raw material without payment of duty.
4. The petitioners filed 9 bills of entry between the period 27th September, 1989 and 12th March, 1990. These bills of entry stated that the goods imported were "Low Carbon Defective/Rejects Colour Coated Sheets in Coils", "MS Low Carbon Defective/Rejects Colour Coated Sheets", "Mild Steel Secondary Grade Colour Coated Sheets", and "Fully Assorted Second Grade Coated Steel Sheets (Colour Coated)".
5. On 31st January, 1990 the Collector of Customs (the 2nd respondent) issued to the petitioners a query memo in regard to the bill of entry filed on 17th January, 1990 which said, "Please explain how it is possible to convert second grade coated steel sheets into coated scaffolding tubes when during processing most of the coating will go off". On 16th February, 1990 a query, memo was raised in respect of a bill of entry filed on 6th February 1990 which stated, "This bill of entry cannot be cleared as the issue of coated tubes to be manufactured out of coated sheets is not settled yet ..." On 22nd March, 1990 a third query memo was issued in respect of a bill of entry filed on 12th March 1990 which stated thus : "The issue of coated tubes to be manufactured from coated sheets is still not settled. Therefore the clearance of this Bill of entry cannot be allowed.
6. It is ordinarily not the practice of the writ court to interfere at the stage of the issuance of a query memo.
7. It is all the more necessary not to interfere here because the petitioners' licence permits import of "secondary sheets/coils/strips, coated/uncoated". The goods imported are variously described in the bills of entry as stated above. In the bill of entry in respect of which the first query memo is issued they are described as "Fully assorted second grade coated steel sheets". The query memo emphasises the words "second grade" and asks the petitioners to explain how it is possible to convert second grade coated steel sheets into coated scaffolding tubes. The Customs authorities may not go behind an import licence but they may certainly ascertain whether the goods that are imported conform to the terms of the import licence. We do not have the technical expertise to ascertain whether the second grade steel sheets that are imported are secondary sheets permitted by the import licence. The subsequent two query memos appear to be a follow-up on the first. The appropriate place for the petitioners to seek relief is before the Customs authorities themselves by answering the query memos.
8. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.