Disposed

Joy Alukkas Private Limited, v. the Commissioner of Customs

Kerala HC4 Oct 2019WP(C)/8838/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court permitted the petitioner to re-export uncut diamonds via a Kimberly Process Certificate subject to paying penalty under protest, allowing an expedited Tribunal appeal continuation to avoid adjudication prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Allowed re-export of imported diamonds subject to payment of penalty under protest; treated Tribunal appeal as timely filed if within one month.

Joy Alukkas Private Limited, Vs the Commissioner of Customs — Customs and Excise | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 12TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.8838 OF 2019(D)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JOY ALUKKAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN-680020, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MARINE DRIVE, COCHIN-682 031,REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SHRI.P.P.JOSE

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR SRI.K.AMAL NATH NAIK SRI.ARJUN SANTHOSH SRI.RENOY VINCENT SMT.HEBA SARA ABRAHAM SRI.NIRANJAN SUDHIR

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTONE ISLAND, ERNAKULAM-682 009 2 THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, OFFICE NO.AW 1010, TOWER A, G BLOCK, BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA-EAST, MUMBAI-400 051

¶11

R1 BY SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.8838 OF 2019(D)

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner Company, which is engaged in the business of retail sale of Gold and Diamond jewellery is aggrieved by Ext.P11 order that is passed by the respondents confiscating the 'Uncut Diamonds' that were imported by the petitioner under the Bill of Entry No. 8034440 dated 13.9.2018 under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. By the same order, the petitioner was granted an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs.10,00,000/- for the purpose of re-export within 30 days along with the Kimberly Process Certificate duly issued by GJEPC. A further penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was also imposed on the petitioner in terms of Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act.

¶17

While the petitioner impugns Ext.P11 order on various ground including the lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner in directing a confiscation of goods that were eventually covered by the Kimberly Certificate prescribed for the purposes of its import, I find that a delay in adjudication of the matter would prejudicially affect the petitioner, who has been permitted to re-export the goods by Ext.P11 order.

¶18

Under the said circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to impugn Ext.P11 order, to the extent it imposes a penalty and redemption fine in lieu of confiscation on the petitioner, before the

¶19

WP(C).No.8838 OF 2019(D)

¶20

¶21

appellate authority in appropriate proceedings, I permit the petitioner to re-export the imported diamonds on the strength of the Kimberly Process Certificate now produced by him as Ext.P10, and subject to his paying the penalty and redemption fine under protest before the respondents. It is made clear that, on the petitioner paying the redemption fine and penalty, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to re-export the imported diamonds without any further delay. Thereafter, if the petitioner prefers an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service (Tax) Appellate Tribunal against Ext.P11 order, by complying with the required formalities, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Tribunal shall consider the appeal as one filed within time and proceed to adjudicate the matter expeditiously.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed as above.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

sab

¶27

WP(C).No.8838 OF 2019(D)

¶28

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXHIBIT	P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN-SHOT OF THE BILL OF ENTRY NO.803440 DATED 13.09.2018
EXHIBIT	P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AIRWAY BILL NO.176.98174635 DATED 11.09.2018
EXHIBIT	P3 A TRUE COPY OF HE COMMERCIAL INVOICE NO.EXS.053 DATED 10.09.2018
EXHIBIT	P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PACKING LIST DATED 10.09.2018
EXHIBIT	P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.53/2003- CUS DATED 23.6.2003 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
EXHIBIT	P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.10.2018 FOR SEEKING CANCELLATION OF THE BILL OF ENTRY AND RE-EXPORTED OF GOODS
EXHIBIT	P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TECHNICAL KP CERTIFICATE DATED 10.01.2019
EXHIBIT	P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.F.NO.S30/29/2018-19 ACC.CUS DATED 08.01.2019
EXHIBIT	P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER IN REPLY TO THE EXHIBIT P-8 SCN DATED 22.01.2019
EXHIBIT	P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL KP CERTIFICATE NO.HO-MUM/80010222 DATED 24.01.2019
EXHIBIT	P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO.COC-CUSTOMES-OOO-COM NO.51/2018-19 DATED 08.02.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Joy Alukkas Private Limited, v. the Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy Alukkas Private Limited, v. the Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas Ittikuru Vs Mohammed Y. Safirulla K IAS

Mohammed Sha.K.K Vs Ramjitha.P

Vani Baburajan Vs Sumna a Beevi

Parakkadavil Mohammed Kunju Ansari Vs the Income Tax Officer

K.Jafarkhan, Vs Deputy Tahsildar

Narayanan, Vs District Collector