The Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S. Aluminium Industries Ltd on 11 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5244 of 2004(Y)


1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,

                        Vs



1. M/S. ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD.,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :11/08/2008

 O R D E R
             THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                    -------------------------------------------
                     W.P(C).No.5244 OF 2004
                   -------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008


                               JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the Commissioner and the

Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Kochi, essentially challenging

the decision communicated through Ext.P6.

Certain amounts are due from the first respondent

company to the Union of India in terms of the provisions of the

Customs Act, 1962. Such amounts can be recovered by

enforcement proceedings against the company. The State Bank

of Travancore had issued bank guarantee for such amount at the

instance of the first respondent. The BIFR has proceedings with

it, in relation to that company. The aforesaid bank was also an

operating agency for quite some time in relation to the affairs of

the first respondent, under the control of BIFR. The proceedings

for recovery, either by invoking the bank guarantee or

otherwise, is essentially a provision for enforcement and

WPC.5244/04

Page numbers

recovery of a liability due from the first respondent company to

the Union of India in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act.

Such distress action, apparently, falls within the purview of Sub-

section (1) of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies

(Special Provisions) Act, 1985, hereinafter, the ‘SICA’, for short.

It is submitted by the second respondent that from 2001, the

bank guarantee has not been renewed. Under such

circumstances, the petitioners have to get appropriate orders

from the BIFR in terms of the SICA. Hence, this writ petition is

closed without prejudice to such course of action and leaving

open all contentions.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
kkb.11/8.