• About
  • Contcat Us
Monday, January 30, 2023
Justice Bench
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
No Result
View All Result
justice bench
No Result
View All Result
Home News

IBC supersedes the Customs Act Once the moratorium is executed: Supreme Court

By Justuce Bench by By Justuce Bench
August 27, 2022
in News
Reading Time: 3 mins read
0
0
supreme-court

supreme-court

0
SHARES
0
VIEWS

In the case of Sundaresh Bhatt v. CBITC, the Supreme Court a Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices JK Maheshwari, and Justice Hima Kohli held on Friday that once a moratorium is executed, the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) would take precedence over the Customs Act.

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) was also determined to have limited authority to determine customs and be unable to begin the recovery of debt in such circumstances by the court.

“The IBC would prevail over The Customs Act, to the extent that once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC as the case may be, the respondent authority only has 35 a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies. The respondent authority does not have the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale/confiscation, as provided under the Customs Act.”

According to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) ruling that was the subject of the appeal, the liquidator’s desire to take possession of items from the customs warehouses that had not yet been paid for in full by way of customs duty was in violation of the Customs Act.

READ ALSO

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends advocate Neela Gokhale as judge of the Bombay High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts

In admitting the appeals of a judgement by the National Company Law Tribunal in Ahmedabad, the NCLAT had come to the conclusion that the assets located in the Customs bonded warehouses could not be regarded as belonging to the corporate debtor.

After considering Section 238 of the IBC, the NCLT determined that the non-obstante clause has precedence over procedures under the Customs Act.

For the appellant-liquidator, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar argued that the respondent had chosen to have its debts handled by the IBC by presenting claims under Section 38 of the IBC.

The products are still owned by the corporate debtor, he continued.

It was asserted that because the relevant statutory charge is expressly subordinate to the IBC, the respondent could not have exercised rights under the Customs Act.

The respondents’ additional solicitor general (ASG), KM Nataraj, stated that the subject commodities were abandoned without paying the required import levies after being imported but never claimed.

The Bench observed that it was confronted with the following two legal issues:

a) If and to what extent the IBC’s provisions would take precedence over the Customs Act.

b) When the liquidation procedure has begun, could the respondent assert ownership of the items and give notice to sell them in accordance with the Customs Act?

The Bench initially observed that the respondent’s demand notifications were

“plainly in the teeth of Section 14 of the IBC as they were issued after the initiation of the CIRP proceedings … [and] clearly violate the provisions of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC, as the case may be”.

It was determined that as the liquidation process had already begun, the respondent could not have asserted ownership of the commodities or given notice to sell them in accordance with the Customs Act.

The respondent authority must present its claims regarding customs dues/operational debt to the adjudicating authority strictly in accordance with the procedure outlined in the IBC after the resolution professional’s assessment, the Bench ordered.

“In any case, the IRP/RP/liquidator can immediately secure goods from the respondent authority to be dealt with appropriately, in terms of the IBC,” 

The Court held

Read Judgement

Sundaresh_Bhatt_vs_CBITC_pdfDownload
Tags: Customs ActInsolvency and Bankruptcy Codesupreme court of india
ShareTweetSendShare

Related Posts

Bombay high court
News

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends advocate Neela Gokhale as judge of the Bombay High Court

January 11, 2023
The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts
News

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts

January 11, 2023
Supreme Court Collegium reiterates Nagendra Ramachandra Naik’s appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge for the third time.
News

Supreme Court Collegium reiterates Nagendra Ramachandra Naik’s appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge for the third time.

January 11, 2023
judges appointment to Andhra Pradesh and Karanataka High court
News

Collegium proposes the appointment of two judicial officers as judges of the high courts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

January 11, 2023
The Uttarakhand High Court's order to the CBI to investigate former CM Trivendra Rawat was quashed by the Supreme Court.
News

The Uttarakhand High Court’s order to the CBI to investigate former CM Trivendra Rawat was quashed by the Supreme Court.

January 5, 2023
Madras-HC-uapa
News

Can the blind guide the blind? The Madras High Court orders the TN Judicial Academy to provide judges with UAPA and remand training.

December 30, 2022
google news
google news

POPULAR NEWS

Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna, and Bela M. Trivedi,

Execution of Document not to be considered based on Admission of Sign on Document Rules Supreme Court

May 12, 2022
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

June 4, 2022
La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino'z - know more

La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino’z – know more

May 20, 2022
Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

June 6, 2022
jug jugg jeeyo

Copyright infringement | Jugjugg Jeeyo movie stay refused by Ranchi court

June 25, 2022

Tags

advocate Algo Legal Allahabad HC Allahabad High Court Anil Deshmukh anticipatory bail Appointment of Judges bail Bombay high court calcutta high court central government cji Collegium Collegium Recommendations defamation delhi high court divorce Enforcement Directorate Gujarat High court Gyanvapi Mosque high court judges IPR Judicial Appointments justice bench karnataka high court kerala high court latest judgements legal news madras high court murder Nawab Malik patna high court pil pocso act public interest litigation Rouse Avenue Court Sequoia Capital study material supreme court Supreme Court Collegium supreme court of india UAPA Union Law Ministry Uttar Pradesh varanasi court

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends advocate Neela Gokhale as judge of the Bombay High Court

by By Justuce Bench
January 11, 2023
0
Bombay high court
News

Advocate Neela Gokhale was today recommended for promotion as judge of the Bombay High Court by the Supreme Court Collegium.

Read more

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts

by By Justuce Bench
January 11, 2023
0
The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts
News

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court Collegium proposed the nomination of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts.

Read more

Supreme Court Collegium reiterates Nagendra Ramachandra Naik’s appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge for the third time.

by By Justuce Bench
January 11, 2023
0
Supreme Court Collegium reiterates Nagendra Ramachandra Naik’s appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge for the third time.
News

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court Collegium decided to confirm the appointment of attorney Nagendra Ramachandra Naik as a Karnataka High...

Read more

Collegium proposes the appointment of two judicial officers as judges of the high courts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

by By Justuce Bench
January 11, 2023
0
judges appointment to Andhra Pradesh and Karanataka High court
News

Tuesday, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended that two judicial officers be appointed as judges of the Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka...

Read more

About

Justice Bench is one of the fastest growing news legal portal in India, for latest Latest Legal News india, Supreme Court judgement updates, High Courts Judgments updates,Law Firms News in india, Law School News, Latest Legal News india visit us.

Follow us

google news
google news

Recent Posts

  • The Supreme Court Collegium recommends advocate Neela Gokhale as judge of the Bombay High Court

Popular News

  • DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino’z – know more

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Google
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Sign Up with Google
OR

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In