Sarla Polyester Limited v. Union of India & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. The petition, accordingly, succeeds. The suspension 20th August 2004 aside. However, clarified concerned authority precluded taking appropriate action against petitioner accordance sub-section (2)(b) Section 58 Customs Act, 1962 subsection (3) Section 58 well. The contentions of the petitioner are kept open to be agitated…
Judgment
20th August 2004 Assistant Commissioner Central Excise, Division-II, Silvassa suspended warehousing licences granted petitioner. It is this order which is impugned in the present writ petition.
Interalia contention learned counsel petitioner licences granted inquiry cancellation petitioner pending clause (b) subsection (2) Section 58 Customs Act, 1962 and, therefore, suspending the said licences under subsection (3) of Section 58 is without jurisdiction.
Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 reads thus: station, Customs Customs Licensing Licensing Licensing warehousing "58.58.58. Commissioner wherein behalf deposit in a public warehouse are not available, may be deposited. dutiable respect licensee, Private Private Private warehouses.- warehouses.- warehouses.- license imported Deputy private facilities (1) At Assistant Commissioner warehouses imported (2) Deputy Commissioner of Customs may cancel a Assistant The Commissioner Customs 3 licence granted under subsection (1) - (a) by giving one month’s notice in writing to the licensee; or (b) provision regulations or committed breach of any of the conditions of the licence: licensee Act contravened before Provided under clause (b), the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. licence cancelled Pending (3) granted cancelled Deputy Commissioner of Customs may suspend the licence. " clause Commissioner enquiry sub-section Assistant (b) whether (1) a should sub-section Customs licence (2),
Sub-section (1) Section 58 provides licence private warehouses Assistant Commissioner Customs Deputy Commissioner Customs. Under clause (a) sub-section (2) licence granted sub-section (1) Section 58 cancelled giving month’s notice writing licensee. Under clause (b) sub-section (2) licensee contravened provisions Customs Act, 1962 regulations framed thereunder committed breach conditions licence, Assistant Commissioner Customs Deputy Commissioner Customs, giving opportunity hearing licensee, cancel licence. Sub-section provides pending enquiry cancellation licence clause (b) sub-section (2), (3) Assistant Commissioner Customs Deputy Commissioner 4 Customs suspend licence. The conferred authority subsection (3) suspend licence granted sub-section (1) exercisable pending enquiry sub-section (2)(b) Section
Though, impugned suspension various contraventions licensee alleged reflect enquiry cancellation licences granted petitioner commenced sub-section (2)(b) Section
58. In affidavit respondents enquiry cancellation licences granted petitioner sub-section (1) Section 58 commenced pending. To specific query, whether enquiry sub-section (2) (b) Section 58 cancellation sub-section (1) licences granted petitioner Section 58 commenced pending, learned counsel revenue submitted enquiry commenced. If so, afraid, suspension warehousing licences granted sub-section (1) Section 58 cannot sustained. The learned counsel revenue satisfy without initiation enquiry sub-section (2)(b) cancellation licences, licences granted sub-section (1) of Section 58 could have been suspended under sub-section (3) of Section 58. 5
In observed above, impugned of suspension dated 20th August 2004 has to be set aside.
The petition, accordingly, succeeds. The suspension 20th August 2004 aside. However, clarified concerned authority precluded taking appropriate action against petitioner accordance sub-section (2)(b) Section 58 Customs Act, 1962 subsection (3) Section 58 well. The contentions of the petitioner are kept open to be agitated in subsequent proceedings, if necessary.
No costs. (R.M. LODHA, J.) LODHA, J.) (R.M. (R.M. LODHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P.
(J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013; Customs Act, 1962 — s. 58.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 02 Sep 2004. The bench was R M LODHA, P DEVADHAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.