Case law

Madras High Court · 13 Jul 1990

A.K. Impex vs Union Of India

Legal principle

The order of a statutory functionary must stand or fall on the reasons disclosed in the order itself — its deficiency cannot be supplied by looking into departmental files — and an appeal or review under the Customs Act is incompetent unless the statutory requirements, including communication of the order, independent application of mind under Section 129D(2) and compliance with Rule 4 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, are strictly observed.

Court decision

All the writ petitions were allowed: Order No. 606 of 1988 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Madras, dated 2-12-1988 was quashed, and the Collector of Customs, Madras, was directed to refund the redemption fine and personal penalty already paid by the petitioners; there was no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioners imported in-shell almonds and sought clearance under an REP Licence as 'seeds' against Export Product G.2(i)(a) of Appendix 17 of the Import Trade Control Policy, supported by a State Horticulture Officer's certificate that the goods were seeds fit for germination and viable for sowing. The Customs House queried the claim on the view that almonds are dry fruits, a consumer item falling under S.No. 121 of Appendix 2B of the ITC Policy. The Deputy Collector held the imports were not covered by the REP licence, ordered confiscation under Section 111(d) with a redemption fine of 80% of c.i.f. value, but imposed no personal penalty. On review under Section 129D(2), the Collector of Customs directed the department to appeal under Section 129D(4), and the Collector (Appeals) enhanced the redemption fine to 200% of c.i.f. value and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on each petitioner under Section 112(a). CEGAT, Madras, dismissed the petitioners' appeals, and they moved the Madras High Court under Article 226 for quashing the Tribunal's order and refund of the fine and penalty.

Key provisions