COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA versus M/S ADANI EXPORTS LTD.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 887 · Decided: 11-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
887
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND
CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA
v.
M/S ADANI EXPORTS LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 6021 of 2009)
FEBRUARY 11, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Customs Act, 1962: s.130A (1) and (4) – High Court is not
mandatorily obligated to call for a statement from the Tribunal in
every case before deciding application under s.130A – A reading
of s.130A (1) and (4) makes it clear that if the Commissioner of
Customs or other party within the prescribed period of limitation
applies in the prescribed form to the High Court to direct the
Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law
arising from such order of the Tribunal, the High Court may do so
– Thus, High Court has a discretion on the facts of each case either
to do so or not to do so.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: The High Court is not mandatorily required to call
for a statement from the Tribunal in every case, where a reference
is made. This is so because of the language of Sub-Section 4 which
opens with an ‘if’.  A reading of Section 130A (1) & (4) would
make it clear that if the Commissioner of Customs or other party
within the prescribed period of limitation applies in the prescribed
form to the High Court to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer
to the High Court any question of law arising from such order of
the Tribunal, the High Court may  do so. What is clear on a reading
of sub-section (4) is that the High Court has a discretion on the
facts of each case either to do so or not to do so. This becomes
absolutely plain from the first word in sub-section (4), namely,
“if”. There is nothing in the language of Section 130A which first
mandatorily obliges the High Court to call for a statement from
the Tribunal before deciding any such application. [Paras 2, 3]
[889 E-H; 890-A]
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 887
887
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Central
Manufacturing Tech. Institute 2002 (146) ELT 27 –
overruled.
Case Law Reference
2002 (146) ELT 27
overruled
Para 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6021
of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2003 of the High Court
of Bombay at Goa in Reference Application Under Customs Act No. 2
of 2003.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 6072-6073 of 2009.
K. Radhakrishnan, Tarun Gulati, Arijit Prasad, Sr. Advs., Ms. Shirin
Khajuria, B. Krishna Prasad, Ejaz Maqbool, Ms. Tanya Shree,
Muhammad Isa M. Hakim, Ms. Aishwarya Sarkar, Kumar Visalaksh,
Udit Jain, Mrs. Bina Gupta, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
1. Having heard Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Revenue for sometime and after perusing the
reference order to a larger Bench dated 14.03.2018, it is first necessary
to set out Section 130A(1) & (4) of the Customs Act.
“130A. Application to High Court.- (1) The Commissioner of
Customs or the other party may, within one hundred and eighty
days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order
under section 129B passed before the 1st day of July, 2003 (not
being an order relating, among other things, to the determination
of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or
to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), by application
in the prescribed form, accompanied, where the application is made
by the other party, by a fee of two hundred rupees, apply to the
High Court to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High
Court any question of law arising from such order of the Tribunal.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
889
(4) If, on an application made under sub-Section (1), the High
Court directs the Appellate Tribunal to refer the question of law
raised in the application, the Appellate Tribunal shall, within one
hundred and twenty days of the receipt of such direction, draw up
a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court.”
2. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan referred to an order of 2 learned Judges
of this Court in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalorev. Central
Manufacturing Tech. Institute reported in 2002 (146) ELT 27 which
reads as under:
“1. Leave granted. The High Court rejected an application for
reference of the question of law arising from the order of CEGAT
and the High Court agreed with the view taken by the Tribunal
and disposed of the matter stating that the question of law does
not arise from the order of CEGAT. That was not the stage at
which the High Cour

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.