Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an electronic engineer engaged in producing advertising films, TV serials, and documentaries, sought to import TV broadcast and studio equipment as permissible non-OGL capital goods against a REP licence purchased by him. The licence carried a flexibility endorsement under para 177 of the Import and Export Policy for April 1988-March 1991, permitting import of goods. Upon import, the petitioner filed a bill of entry for home consumption on 15th June 1992 along with the REP Licence (No.3343737 dated 13.2.90 valid for 18 months) and requested clearance. The Customs Authorities (respondent nos.2 and 3) refused to assess the bill of entry and allow the imports, even though previously similar goods had been allowed to be imported by the petitioner himself and a few other persons. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to allow clearance of the goods. The court admitted the petition and by an interim order dated 6th July 1992 permitted the petitioner to clear the goods against the REP licence subject to executing an I.T.C. Bond for 100% of the C.I.F value of the goods, and also granted permission to the respondents to adjudicate but not to enforce the order pending final disposal. The goods were cleared accordingly. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the Customs Authorities were not justified in refusing clearance and directed them to allow the clearance of the goods, thereby allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Customs Law - Import of Goods - REP Licence - Flexibility Endorsement - The petitioner imported TV broadcast and studio equipment against a REP licence with a flexibility endorsement under para 177 of the Import and Export Policy for April 1988-March 1991. The Customs Authorities refused to assess the bill of entry and allow clearance, despite similar goods being allowed previously. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to clearance and issued a mandamus directing the respondents to allow the clearance of the goods. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Customs Authorities were justified in refusing to assess the bill of entry and allow import of TV broadcast and studio equipment against a REP licence with a flexibility endorsement under para 177 of the Import and Export Policy for April 1988-March 1991.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to allow the clearance of the goods. The interim order dated 6th July 1992 had already permitted clearance subject to an I.T.C. Bond, and the goods were cleared accordingly.
Law Points
- Import and Export Policy
- REP Licence
- Flexibility Endorsement
- Mandamus
- Customs Clearance
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (03) 28
Writ Petition No.1481 of 1992
F. I. Rebello, D.G. Karnik
Mr. A.J. Rana, Sr. Counsel i/b Pandya & Co. for the petitioner; Mr. P.S. Jetly with Mr. Rohit Pardeshi for the respondents
Ashok Kumar Jain Proprietor, M/s. Jain Brothers
The Union of India, The Collector of Customs, The Assistant Collector of Customs
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking mandamus for clearance of imported goods
Remedy Sought
Mandamus directing respondents to allow clearance of TV broadcast and studio equipment
Filing Reason
Customs Authorities refused to assess bill of entry and allow import despite valid REP licence with flexibility endorsement
Previous Decisions
Interim order dated 6th July 1992 permitted clearance subject to I.T.C. Bond; goods cleared accordingly
Issues
Whether the Customs Authorities were justified in refusing to assess the bill of entry and allow import of goods against a REP licence with a flexibility endorsement under para 177 of the Import and Export Policy for April 1988-March 1991.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that similar goods were previously allowed to be imported by himself and others, and the REP licence with flexibility endorsement permitted the import.
Respondents refused clearance without providing specific justification in the judgment text.
Ratio Decidendi
The Customs Authorities were not justified in refusing to assess the bill of entry and allow import of goods against a valid REP licence with a flexibility endorsement under para 177 of the Import and Export Policy for April 1988-March 1991, especially when similar goods had been allowed previously.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner desired to import T.V. Broadcast and studio equipments as permissible non-OGL capital goods against a REP licence, purchased by the petitioner, which carried specifically a flexibility endorsement under para 177 of Import and Export Policy for April 1988-March 1991 permitting import of goods.
The Custom Authorities – the respondent nos.2 and 3 herein, however refused to assess the bill of entry and allow the imports, though previously similar goods were allowed to be imported by the petitioner himself as well as few other persons.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a bill of entry on 15th June 1992 for clearance of imported goods against a REP licence. Customs Authorities refused clearance. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1481 of 1992 in the Bombay High Court. On 6th July 1992, the court passed an interim order permitting clearance subject to an I.T.C. Bond. The goods were cleared accordingly. The petition was finally heard and judgment pronounced on 8th March 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Import and Export Policy for April 1988-March 1991: Para 177
