UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus M/S. RAJ GROW IMPEX LLP & ORS.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus M/S. RAJ GROW IMPEX LLP & ORS.

On the facts the Court held that the peas/pulses imported beyond the permissible notified quantity and without licence were 'prohibited goods' under s.3(3) of the FTDR Act and s.11 of the Customs Act; the Adjudicating Authority's mechanical grant of redemption under s.125(1) was not a proper exercise of discretion given the adverse impact on national economy and farmers and prior precedent (Agricas). The correct exercise of discretion was absolute confiscation, but the Court allowed a limited option to re-export on payment of redemption fine and compliance with statutory obligations; orders of the High Court directing release were set aside and the Appellate Authority orders of...

Parties
Appellant: Union of India & Ors.; Respondent Importer: M/s. Raj Grow Impex LLP; Respondent Importer: M/s. Harihar Collections
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment (hearing and Final Decision) Dated 17.06.2021
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Prohibited Goods, Restricted Goods, Confiscation, Redemption Fine, Exercise of Discretion, Interim Orders, Statutory Appeal, Import Licensing
Customs Law Foreign Trade Law Administrative Law Equity Interim Relief Prohibited Goods Restricted Goods Confiscation +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union of India & Ors.

Appellant

M/s. Raj Grow Impex LLP

Respondent Importer

M/s. Harihar Collections

Respondent Importer

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment (hearing and Final Decision) Dated 17.06.2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether goods imported beyond notified quantity and without licence are 'prohibited goods' under s.3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and s.11 of the Customs Act, 1962
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in exercising its discretion under s.125(1) of the Customs Act by allowing redemption on payment of fine instead of ordering absolute confiscation
  3. 3 Legality and validity of the High Court orders directing release of the goods while appeals were pending

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts the Court held that the peas/pulses imported beyond the permissible notified quantity and without licence were 'prohibited goods' under s.3(3) of the FTDR Act and s.11 of the Customs Act; the Adjudicating Authority's mechanical grant of redemption under s.125(1) was not a proper exercise of discretion given the adverse impact on national economy and farmers and prior precedent (Agricas). The correct exercise of discretion was absolute confiscation, but the Court allowed a limited option to re-export on payment of redemption fine and compliance with statutory obligations; orders of the High Court directing release were set aside and the Appellate Authority orders of...

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court order dated 15.10.2020 (as modified 09.12.2020) set aside and writ petitions dismissed
  • Impugned High Court interim order dated 05.01.2021 set aside