Case Commentary
Case Commentary
Case Commentary
Conclusion
Distinguished chief justices-CJI. N.V. RAMANA, J. J.K. MAHESHWARI, and J. HIMA
KOHLI. They answer both the issues by giving reasoned judgment. Answering the first issue,
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 a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies.
The respondent authority does not have the power to initiate the recovery of dues by means of
sale/confiscation, as provided under the Customs Act.
While answering the 2nd issue, it is mentioned that once a moratorium is imposed the
respondent has limited jurisdiction to initiate the recovery of dues by means of
sale/confiscation, as provided under customs law. After the assessment, the respondent has to
give its claims according to the procedure established under IBC. In all the cases the
liquidator can immediately secure goods from the respondent according to IBC.
Hence, the Honorable court set aside the impugned order and judgment of NCLAT.