Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 33,79,80,32(2),33(5),179,193,217

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,52

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 2,O.VII,R.11,115

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss. 193 & 217- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.2 & O. VII, R.11-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 52-Suit for declaration and permanent injunction-Maintainability-Protection of action taken under Customs Act, 1969-Suit barred under Customs Act, 1969- Order passed under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.-Nature and effect-Remedy available under special law-Scope-Concurrent findings-Rules for interference-Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging validity of demand letter under which tax duties were imposed by defendants on equipment imported by plaintiff and warrant of attachment issued for non-payment of said duties- Contention raised by plaintiff was that the equipment imported by him was not subject to payment of any tax duties and that show-cause notice issued to plaintiff was time barred in terms of S. 32(2) of Customs Act, 1969-Defendant took plea that show cause notice was within time as provided under S. 32(5) of Customs Act, 1969-Trial Court dismissed the suit being barred under S. 217 of Customs Act, 1969 and due to availability of adequate remedy of appeal under S. 193 of the Act- Appellate court upheld and decree of Trial Court-Validity- Customs Act, 1969 was complete Code in respect of levy and collection of customs duties and other allied matter and rights of parties were fully protected by said law-When an action or order passed by Customs suffered from illegalities, aggrieved party could always seek remedy in hierarchy provided under the said Act-Assumption of jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute relating to customs duties would come within domain of highest hierarchy or Tribunal established under Customs Act, 1969-Under S. 217 of Customs Act, 1969 provided bar in respect of suits filed by importers and the same were incompetent- Section 193 of Customs Act, 1969 provided that any person who felt aggrieved by decision or order passed under Ss. 33, 79, 80 & 179 of the Act could prefer appeal to Collector within thirty days from date of communication of order, and it also contained provision as to condonation of delay in filing of appeal after prescribed period of…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492