The Standing Order 13 of June 14, 2011, and the consequent instructions in Note 4 of the same date issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Exports), Chennai, on valuation of second-hand goods such as used photocopiers and multi-function machines did not call for interference by the Madras High Court and a batch of writ petitions by importers challenging these orders would stand dismissed, Mr Justice K. Chandru held.

It was not the case where the Commissioner of Customs (R-3) had violated the circular of the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) nor assumed the power under Sec 151-A of the Customs Act. The impugned circular was only an inter-office communication upon which the petitioners had no right to challenge. The courts had always ruled that administrative orders of Governmental authorities were not open to scrutiny under Article 226, the Judge ruled.

The petitioners in Allahabad, Mirzapur, Kolkata and Chennai contended that the action of the respondents in insisting upon production of licence under the Foreign Trade Policy was contrary to the policy.

Orders of R-3 were without jurisdiction.

The note instructions issued were unique and unparalleled, the petitioners said.

If other Indian ports were not having such restrictions, it was not clear as to why Chennai Port must adopt a different yardstick.

The respondents said that the CBEC had issued a circular on July 4, 2011, regarding import of hazardous waste if allowed to dump into India, would be a serious threat to environment. So, there was need to adhere to the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling & Transboundry) Rules 2008.

Citing a judgment of the apex court, the Judge said when there were threats of serious damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation [S. Jagannath vs Union of India reported in (1997) 2 SCC 87].

The writ petitions stood dismissed.

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW