Page 21 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] INDEX - 15th July, 2020 xix
from Turkey whether an unconstitutional restriction on petitioner’s right
to trade and carry on business - Source of power under Narcotic Drugs &
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Foreign Trade (Development &
Regulation) Act, 1992 not questioned - Merely saying that a certain clause
is, in the petitioner’s view, sub-optimal, or leaves something to be
desired, is not enough to warrant a striking down of the notification -
HELD : Although Court not inclined to strike down the guidelines in the
form of a policy as ultra vires the provisions of Constitution of India, yet
the Union of India directed to remind observations of Delhi High Court
in the order dated 11-9-2019 in Writ Petition (C) No. 7676 of 2019 - It is
prerogative of UOI to frame a policy - However, such policy must be
transparent, fair and reasonable - Union of India should consider framing
a policy which provides for a fair chance to every applicant in procuring
the importable quantity irrespective of the date of their application - Such
proven must be transparent and fair - Adopting a methodology of first
come first serve has inherent flaws and anybody having access to powers
corridor at some level is likely to secure unfair advantage at the cost of
other applicants who may not have similar access - Union of India
directed to device a better mechanism/policy for allotment of quota so as
to make the process much more competitive transparent, fair and
reasonable - Article 14 of Constitution of India — A.D. Enterprise v. Union of
India (Guj.) ....................................... 167
Improper import of goods, penalty on co-noticee imposable - See under
PENALTY ...................................... 258
Interest on warehoused goods - Limitation - Section 61(2) of Customs Act,
1962 only referring to interest payable under Section 47 ibid and not to
Section 27 ibid - Even post amendment of Section 27 ibid in 1991,
distinction kept between duty and interest payable on such duty - There
being no limitation provided for refund of interest paid on warehoused
goods, Tribunal order based on C.B.E. & C. Instruction F. No. 475/39/90-
Cus.VII, dated 8-8-1990 cannot be faulted - Refund not time-barred -
Admissible — Commr. of Cus. & C. Ex., Coimbatore v. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd.
(Mad.) ......................................... 223
— on warehoused goods - Warehousing period applicable would be the
period in force on the date of deposit of the goods in the warehouse, in
spite of further amendment brought in to reduce the warehousing period
- Section 61 of Customs Act, 1962 — Commr. of Cus. & C. Ex., Coimbatore v.
Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. (Mad.) ............................ 223
INTERPRETATIVE RULES :
— Rule 2(a) - See under SEGWAY .......................... 267
Investigation in gold smuggling in progress, bail not granted
notwithstanding relaxations in bail matters during COVID-19 - See under
BAIL ......................................... 188
Jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner to adjudicate gold smuggling cases
of competency of Principal Commissioner - See under ADJUDICATION ... 159
— of Commissioner Central Excise to adjudicate case of diverted imports
where exemption granted on basis of Certificate from Central Excise
Division - See under ADJUDICATION ...................... 258
Larger Bench’s constitution by President of Tribunal, scope of powers - See
under APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.......................... 233

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  21