SHESHANK SEA FOODS PVT. LTD. KARNATAKA ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A        SHESHANK SEA FOODS PVT. LTD. KARNATAKA ETC.
                              v.
                   UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                              NOVEMBER 19, 1996

B             [S.P. BHARUCHA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]

          Customs Act, 1962 :

        S 111 (o)-Exemption Notification No. 116 dated 30.4. 1988-Breach
  of conditions-Power ofcustoms authorities to investigate into-Sought to
C be excluded on the ground that terms ofExemption Notification were made
  part of licence and, as such, the licensing authority alone had jurisdiction
  to investigate into the alleged breach-Held, merely because licensing
  authority is empol1 eretl to investigate, Custon1s authorities are not precluded
                       1


  from doing so-The breach is not only of the terms of the licence, but is
D also of the Exemption Notification and, therefore, provisions of s. 111 (o)
   enable the Customs authorities to investigate.

         The appellant was availing the benefit of Exemption Notification
    No: 116 datecl,30.4.1988 issued u/s 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
    One of the conditions of the Notification was that the materials
E   imported thereunder would not "be sold, loaned, transferred or
    disposed of in any other manner". The Customs authorities, on coming
    to know of cases of violation of the terms of the Notification, started
    investigation u/s 11 l(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.

          Writ petitions were filed before the High Court seeking a writ
F   of prohibition restraining the Customs authorities from proceeding
    with search and seizure operations in the premises of the petitioners
    on the ground that raw materials had been imported under advance
    licence which incorporated the terms of the said Exemption
    Notification, and, therefore, only the licensing authority had the
G   jurisdiction to investigate the alleged violations. The High Court
    dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present
    appeal before this Court.

          It was contended for the appellant that in view of paragraph
     231 of the Import and Export Policy, 1989-91 and Paragraph 374 of
H    the Hand Book of Procedure, April 1988-March 1991, issued by the
                                          802
         SHESHANK SEA FOODS PVT. LTD. v. U.O.l. [BHARUCHA, J.] 803


     Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, it was only the licensing       A
•    authority which could investigate into alleged cases of domestic sale
     of exempt material and the jurisdiction of the Customs authorities to
     do so was ousted. Reliance was also placed on a communication dated
    .p.5.1969 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in respect
     of which the Ministry of Law was stated to have advised that it would
     not be possible to take action u/s 11 l(o) of the Customs Act with         B
     respect to conditions of the licence relating to use of goods after they
     were cleared from Customs charge.

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court

          HELD: I.I. There is nothing in the provisions of the Import C
    and Export Policy 1988-91 or the Hand Book of Procedures issued by
    the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, that even remotely
    suggests that the power of Customs authorities under s.11 l(o) of/
    Customs Act, 1962 had been taken away or abridged or that ail
    investigation into the alleged breach of the terms of the Exemption
    Notification, incorporated in the advance licence, could be conducted D
    only by the-Jicensing authority. That the licensing authority is
    ~mpowered ft>_ conduct an investigation into cases of alleged domestic
    sale of exe~pt material does not by itself preclude the Customs
    authorities from doing so. (806 FG I
                                                                                E
           1.2. It is true that communication dated 13.5.1969 issued by the
    Central Board of Excise and Customs refers to the breach of the
    condition of a licence, and that the terms of Exemption Notification
    No. 116 dated 30.4.1988 were made part of appellant's licence and, in
    that sense, a breach of the terms of the Exemption Notification is also
    a breach of a condition of a licence, entitling the licensing authority F
    to investigate. But the breach is not only of the terms of the licence; it
    is also a breach of the condition in the Exemption Notification upon
    which the appellants obtained exemption from payment of Customs
    duty and, therefore, the provisions of s. l ll(o) enable the Customs
    authorities to investigate. (806 H, 807 A,B)
                                                                                G
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1152 of
    1992 Etc.

        ,From the Judgment and Order dated 21.6.91 of the Karnataka High
    Court in W.A. No. 1312 of 1991.                                             H
    804                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A        R. Thyagarajan, Joseph Vellapally, R. Mohan, V. Balachandran, R.P.
    Wadhwani, Ms. Bina Gupta, G. Prakash, V.K. Verma, P. Parmeshwaran.              •
    and C.V.S. Rao for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:

B         BHARUCHA, J. The principal judgment was delivered by a Division
    Bench of the High Court ofKarnataka in the case of Mis. Karnath Packaging
    Limited (Civil Appeal No.1153/92). In the other matters the High Court
    followed the aforesaid judgment.

          A writ petition was filed by Mis. Karnath Packaging Ltd. before the
C High Court seeking a writ of prohibition restraining the Customs authorities
    from proceeding with search and seizure operations in their premises. The
    writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge and the appeal
    therefrom by the Division Bench. The writ petition was filed upon the
    basis that the Customs authorities had no right or authority nor did the
    Customs Act, 1962, empower them to go into questions relating 'to the
D   utilisation of the raw materials that had been imported by the appellants
    under advance licences granted to them under the Duty Exemption Scheme.
    It was the case of the Customs authorities that the raw materials had been
    imported by the appellants without payment of duty by availing of the
    benefit of an Exemption Notification dated 30th April, 1988 (No. 116/
E    1988). The terms and conditions thereof had been violated by the appellants.
    Search and seizure operations in this tehalf were, therefore, within their
    powers.

         The said Exemption Notification was issued in exercise of powers
    conferred by Section 25(1) of the Customs Act and one of the conditions
F   thereof was that the materials exempted thereunder would not "be sold,
    loaned, transferred or disposed of in any other manner".

           Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the investigation by
    the Customs authorites was in respect of alleged violations of the terms of
G   the appellants' advance licences which incorporated the terms of the said
    Exemption Notification. Only the licensing authority had the jurisdiction
    to investigate the alleged violations. The Duty Exemption Scheme under
    which the licences had been issued was a code by itself and excluded any
     investigation by the Customs authorities. The bond that had been furnished
     by the appellants pursuant to the licences also provided for action by the
H    licensing authority.
         SHESHANK SEA FOODS PVT. LTD. v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.] 805


           Our attention was drawn by learned counsel for the appellant in            A
    support of his aforestated submissions to the Import and Export Policy,
     1988-91, wherein Chapter XIX dealt with the Duty Exemption Scheme.
    Paragraph 23 I stated that the licence holder should, before clearance of
    the first consignment of import, execute a bond with the requisite value of
    bank guarantee or legal undertaking, as the case may be, with the concerned
    licensing authority in the prescribed form. Paragraph 243 read thus :             B

                  "If a licence holder fails to discharge the prescribed export
                  obligation within the permitted time, the licensing authority
                  shall initiate action against the licence-holder on the lines
                  indicated in Chapter XIX of the Hand Book of Procedures,
                  I 988-9 I. This shall, however, be without prejudice to any         C
                  other action that initiated by the Customs authorities for
                  recovery of Customs duty or other duties and interest thereon
                  under Section I 42 of the Customs Act, 1962."

           Learned counsel drew attention to the Hand Book of Procedures,
'    April I 988-March 1991, issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Government           D
     of India, Chapter XIX whereof also dealt with the Duty Exemption Scheme.
     Paragraph 374 dealt with the consequences of a licence holder failing to
     discharge the prescribed export obligation, either in full or in part. If this
     happened in such circumstances that "the licensing authority is satisfied
     that the exempt material has not been sold or misutilised for domestic           E
     production" the action that could be taken was set out. The learned counsel's
     submission, these provisions of the Import and Export Policy and the
     Hand Book of Procedures showed that it was only the licensing authority
     which could investigate alleged cases of domestic sale of exempt material
    -and the jurisdiction of the Customs authorities to do so was ousted.
                                                                                      F
            Learned counsel placed reliance upon a communication to all
    Collectors of Central Excise issued by the Central Board of Excise and
    Customs on 13th May, 1969, on the subject of whether, in the event of the
    contravention of a post-importation condition of an import licence, it was
    open to the Customs authorities the confiscate imported goods under Section       G
     I I I(o) of the Customs Act. The said communication stated that before
    Section I I l(o) could be attracted there had "to be an exemption, subject
    io a condition, from a prohibition. Where a valid licence has been issued,
    it is not a case of an exemption from the prohibition. Therefore, if a post
    importation condition of a licence is contravened, it cannot be said that
    any condition of exemption is contravened.                                        H
    806                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP.8 S.C.R.


A         For the reasons stated above, the Ministry of Law have advised that
    it may not be possible to take action under Section 111 (o) with respect to
    the conditions of the licence relating to the use of goods after they are
    cleared from the Customs charge."

          Section 11 l(o) is the sheet-anchor of the respondent's case. It reads
B thus:
                 "111. Confiscation of improperly imported goods, Etc.- The
                 following goods brought from a place outside India shall be
                 liable to confiscation-

c                 (b) any goods exempted, subject to any condition, from duty
                  or any prohibition in respect of the import thereof under this
                  Act or any other law for the time being in force, in respect
                  of which the condition is not observed unless the non-
                  observance of the condition was sanctioned by the proper
                  officer."
D                                                                                   •
          Section 111 (o) states that when goods are exempted from Customs
    duty subject to a condition and the condition is not observed, the goods
    are liable to confiscation. The case of the respondents is that the goods
    imported by the appellants, which availed of the said exemption subject to
E   the condition that they would not be sold, loaned, transferred or disposed
    of in any other manner, had been disposed of by the appellants. The
    Customs authorities, therefore, clearly h.1d the power to take action under
    the provisions of Section 111 (o ).

          We do not find in the provisions of the Import and Export Policy or
F the Hand Book of Procedures issued by the Ministry of Commerce,
  Government of India, anything that even remotely suggests that the
  aforesaid power of the Customs authorities had been taken away or abridged
  or that an investigation into such alleged breach could be conducted only
  by the licensing authority. That the licensing authority is empowered
G conduct such an investigation does not by itself preclude the Customs
  authorities from doing so.
                                                                                    ·~-



          The communication of the Central Board of Excise and Customs
    dated 13th May, 1969, refers to the breach of the condition of a license
    and suggests that it may not be possible to take action under Section 111 (o)
H   in respect thereof. It is true that the terms of the said Exemption
       SHESHANK SEA FOODS PVT. LTD. v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.] 807


Notification were made part of the appellant's licences and, in that sense,       A
a breach of the terms of the said Exemption Notification is also a breach
of the terms of the license. entitling the licensing authority to investigate.
But the breach is not only of the. terms of the license. it is also a breach of
the condition in the Exemption Notification upon which the appellants
obtained exemption from payment of Customs duty and. therefore, the
tenns of Section I I I ( o) enable th~ .Custo1ns authorities to investigate.      B

       For these reasons, \Ve find no merit in the appeals and dismiss the1n
\Vith costs.


R.P.                                                      Appeals dismissed.