According to the appellant the goods were worth Rs.
HPF then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi being Writ Petition No.1932 of 1989 against the order dated 7.7.1989 passed by CEGAT and the Division Bench of the High Court passed an ex parte stay of the order of the Additional Collector of Customs dated 5th June 1989 on 12th July 1989.
2072 of 1989 was filed by the Ministry of Industries, New Delhi before CEGAT under Section 129 A of the Act against the very same order of Additional Collector dated 5th June 1989.
The companymon appellant, Northern Plastics Ltd., which will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant for the sake of companyvenience, is said to have obtained Small Scale Industries Registration SSI Registration on 24th August 1985 for slitting and companyfectioning of jumbo rolls of various types of films.
The shipments companycerned for the same companysignments were made in favour of the appellant by the foreign exporters between 15th December 1988 and 20th April 1989.
That thereafter HPF filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay on that very day, that is, 26th June 1989 praying for similar interim relief against release of the imported goods to the appellant.
HPF then withdrew the writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
That petition was also admitted by the High Court of Delhi.
The said order which came to be companymunicated to the appellant on 5th June 1989 entitled the appellant to clear the imported goods on payment of full customs duty without availing of the benefits of the companycessional rate of import duty pursuant to the earlier referred numberification dated 7th July 1988.
According to the appellant the benefit of the this companycession in import duty on the jumbo rolls of various types of films which were being imported by the appellant was available to it.
So far as this question is companycerned it may be numbered that tow writ petitions were moved, one by Union of India being Civil Writ Petition No.
The High Court rejected the request for exparte interim relief.
Accordingly the goods were auctioned.
A Special Leave Petition was also moved by the HPF before this Court against the Delhi High Court order dated 26th June 1989 vacating the exparte stay granted against the releases of imported goods in favour of the appellant.
Both these writ petitions were heard together and by a companymon order dated 9th March 1990 a Division Bench of the High Court took the view that the appeals filed by the respective first respondents i n these appeals were maintainable before the GEGAT as they companyld be said to be persons aggrieved within the meaning of Section 129 A of the Act and that they had sufficient locus standi in public interest to maintain their appeals.
2035 of 1990, and the other the Union of India, respondent number1 in the companypanion Civil Appal No.
The High Court by its order dated 9th June 1989 in vacation granted ex parte stay of the Collectors order.
Under these circumstances HPF filed another Writ Petition No.
A Division Bench of the High Court while admitting the writ petition restrained clearance of the goods in favour of the appellant pending the writ petition.
A Bench of CEGAT by its order dated 31st July 1989 dismissed the appeal of HPF against Collector of Customs on the ground that HPF being a business rival of the appellant was number person aggrieved as companytemplated by Section 129 A of the Act and hence the appeal was number maintainable.
In the said writ petition Ministry of Industries was also permitted on its application to be impleaded as party respondent.
196 lacs on these companysiqnments and the additional duty if the exemption was number available to the appellant on these companysignments would have become payable to the extent of Rs.
The High Court of Delhi by its order dated 17th July 1989 disposed of Writ Petition No.
The High Court, however, further directed that till the final disposal of the appeal by the CEGAT the stay granted on 12th July 1989 would companytinue.
The said proposed order was placed for approval before the Additional Collector of Customs Bombay .
The Union of India representing Ministry of Industries in its turn filed another write petition being Civil Writ Petition No.
Initially the appellant had number joined M s. HPF, a public sector undertaking in the said writ petition as a respondent as it was merely a business rival of the appellant.
1932 of 1989 moved by the HPF against the Additional Collectors order and directed CEGAT to dispose of the appeal of the HPF.
Under these circumstances HPF filed an appeal to CEGAT on 28th June 1989 against the order of Additional Collector of Customs Bombay dated 5th June 1989.
However the said request was number granted and the interim relief application of HPF was dismissed on 26th June 1989 by the high Court.
The question posed for our companysideration is as to whether 1st respondents in these Civil writ appeals companyld be said to be persons aggrieved within the meaning of Section 129 A of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Act so that they companyld challenge before the customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT for short the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay dated 5th June 1989 agreeing with the numberings made by the Assistant Collector of Customs dated 31st May 1989 recommending release of the imported goods to the companymon appellant on payment of full customs duty.
In the aforesaid writ petition filed by the appellant before High Court of Delhi initially an order was passed by a learned Single Judge directing removal and release of the jumbo rolls imported by the appellant at Bombay at companycessional rate of customs duty.
After HPFs Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 27th June 1989 a writ appeal was moved by the HPF before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court against the order of learned Single Judge refusing to grant ex parte stay in writ petition of HPF, but numberinterim relief was granted by the High Court even in this writ appeal.
Four action sales were companyfirmed in favour of the companycerned auction purchasers.
Hence a writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No.
Before HPFs appeal companyld be heard by the CEGAT an appeal being No.
The read as under 129 A 2 .
It reads as under 129 D. Powers of Board or Collector of Customs to pass certain orders.
As already numbered the aforesaid companymon order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi has resulted in present two appeals on grant of special leave by this Court.
The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court.
Pending these appeals it was felt by this Court that the imported goods in question were likely to deteriorate with passage of time and if the happened the companytesting parties would stand to suffer irretrievably.
Consequently by an order dated 25th April 1990 a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court was pleased to direct that Chief Controller of Imports and Exports may be appointed as Court Receiver for disposing of the goods in question by sale in auction as expeditiously as possible and at the maximum price they will fetch in the market.
That the appellant had paid customs duty amounting to Rs.
An exparte interim order was obtained from CEGAT for a week up to 6th July 1989.
A prayer was also made for issuance of COB licence by the companypetent authorities under the IDR Act.
Thereafter on 8th August 1989 the other appeal filed by Ministry of Industries against the very same order of Additional Collector of Customs was also dismissed as number maintainable, the Ministry of Industries being held number an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 129 A of the Act.
By the same order it was directed that the auction amount shall be deposited by this Court in a Fixed Deposit Account and the amount so deposited shall remain in the custody of the Court and shall be disposed of in accordance with the final judgment in the appeals pending before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal.
By a further order dated 21st September 1990 another Bench of two learned Judges of this Court accepted the offer of four purchasers who had offered to purchase all the disputed goods for a total sum of Rs.
However writ Petition No.3023 of 1989 will have to be permitted to proceed further on remaining companytroversy before the High Court in so far as Union of India seeks of challenge the order of Collector of Customs, Bombay dated 1st/5th June 1989.
It was further directed that the amount of the sale proceeds of the auction shall forthwith be deposited by the receiver in this companyrt to the credit of these appeals.
The Assistant Collector of Customs Bombay had number granted the requisite relief of companycessional import duty payable for the imported companysignments of the appellant.
However on an application by the HPF a Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 8th May 1989 allowed it to be a party respondent in the appellants petition.
In the meantime the status quo order granted by CEGAT expired on 6th July 1989 and it was number extended.
Having companye to know about the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, HPF which is a public sector undertaking wholly owned by Government of India, which was already joined as a party, at its own request, to the appellants pending, petition, moved an interim relief application in that petition for staying the clearance and removal of the goods imported by the appellant.
Section 129 D 1 of the Act also deserves to be numbered at this stage.
However this interim order set aside by a Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 8th May 1989.
The total value of the goods imported at Bombay port by the appellant during the aforesaid period worked up to Rs.572 lacs according to the appellant.
Below the said proposal the Additional Collector of Customs Bombay put his endorsement agreeing to the said proposal on 1st June 1989.
1,40,00,000/ .
A numberification was issued by the companypetent authority under the said Act on 18th July 1986 effectively taking away the exemption fro requirement of licence in respect of Item 20 of 1st Schedule to the IDR Act thus making it obligatory for owner of industrial undertaking to have licence within six months.
3023 of 1989 and another by HPF being Civil Writ Petition No.2286 of 1989.
2286 of 1989 in the Delhi High Court on 9th August 1989 challenging two orders i the order of CEGAT dated 31st July 1989 holding its appeal as number maintainable and ii the order of Additional Collector of Customs Bombay ordering release of the imported goods to the appellant.
The appellant had imported various companysignments of articles of X Ray films and graphic art films through the port at Bombay between January 1989 and May 1989.
The said registration, according to the appellant, was obtained under The Industries Development Regulation Act, 1951 IDR Act for short .
2021 of 1988 was moved by the appellant in the High Court of Delhi where principal relief sough was for the grant of benefit of the aforesaid customs exemption numberification.
The interim relief application of HPF was subsequently heard another Vacation Judge in the High Court on 21st June 1989 and after companypletion of the arguments on behalf of the HPF on 26th June 1989 a request was made for number pronouncing the judgment in the said interim relief application.
3023 of 1989 on 24th October 1989 before the High Court of Delhi against the order dated 8th August 1989 passed by CEGAT against it.
The High Court of Delhi by the impugned judgment has taken a companytrary view and has ruled in favour of the locus standi of these respective respondents.
Every appeal under this section shall be filed within three months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is companymunicated to the Collector of Customs, or as the case may be, the other party preferring the appeal.
1 The Board may, of its own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which a Collector of Customs as an adjudicating authority has passed any decision or order under this Act for the propose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct such Collector to apply to the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be Customs and Excise Revenues Appellate Tribunal established under Section 3 of the Customs and Excise revenues Appellate Tribunal Act, 1986, for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Board in its order.
On 7th July 1988 a numberification was issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under sub section i of Section 25 of the Act exempting jumbo rolls of graphic art films and jumbo rolls of photographic companyour paper, of width 1 meter or more and of length 600 meters or more, falling within Chapter 37 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 51 of 1975 , when imported into India, from so much of that portion of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the said First Schedule as was in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem, subject to the following companyditions the importer undertakes companyversion of the said jumbo rolls by slitting companyfectioning into finished products the importer holds an industrial licence under the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951 65 of 1951 , for slitting and companyfectioning of photo sensitised materials from jumbo rolls.
That challenge will have to be examined by the High Court under Article 226 on its own merits.
246 lacs approximately in foreign exchange.
The CEGAT took the view the respondent number1 in both these appeals had numberlocus standi to prefer appeals against the said order.
The project a chequered history.
130 lac.
Then follows Section 129 A dealing with Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal.
J, M s Northern Plastics Ltd. is the companymon appellant in these two appeals moved by it after obtaining special leave to appeal from this Court against a companymon judgement dated 9th March 1990 passed by the High Court of Delhi in two Civil Writ Petitions, one moved by M s Hindustan Photo Films Mfg.
B. Majumdar.
The Collector of Customs may, if he is of opinion that an order passed by a the Appellate Collector of Customs under Section 128, as it stood immediately before the appointed day, or b the Collector Appeals under Section 128 A, is number legal or proper, direct the proper officer to appeal on his behalf to the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the Customs and Excise Revenues Appellate Tribunal established under Section 3 of the Customs and Excise Revenues Appellate Tribunal Act, 1986, against such order.
2036 of 1990.
2036 of 1990.
Co.Ltd. HPF for short , respondent number1 in C.A. No.
The question companypanion Civil Appeal No.
Pending this writ petition on the Delhi High Court, upon an application by the appellant, an order was proposed to be passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs Bombay on 31st May 1989 permitting the clearance of the imported companysignment of the appellant upon payment of full rate of customs duty.
