what we do

We have specialization to provide advisory services on complex statutory Compliance and policy-related matters under areas of Logistics (Import & Export), Taxation (GST & Customs), Foreign Trade & Investment (DGFT), Food Safety (FSSAI), Weights & Measures (Legal Metrology), Wireless & Telecommunication Products (WPC) and Chartered Engineering services. Optimize your Supply chain as 4PL Company through our 3PL partners. Refund of duty/ credit/interest at Customs, GST and DGFT Appellate Service related to Customs, GST and Legal Metrology. Licenses and IEC from DGFT.

Friday, January 24, 2025

DEFENSE REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 155 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962

 Defense Reply for Protection Under Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962

BEFORE THE HONORABLE COURT

IN THE MATTER OF:
[Case Title and Details]

DEFENSE REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 155 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962


1. Preliminary Submissions

1.1. The present proceedings against the Respondent/Accused are not maintainable in light of the statutory protection granted under Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962.

1.2. Section 155 explicitly provides that:

"No suit, prosecution, or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government or any officer of the Government for anything done or purported to be done in good faith under this Act unless the complaint is filed within three months from the date of the act complained of."

1.3. The Respondent has acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and within the scope of official duties. There has been no violation of law or malafide intention on the part of the Respondent.


2. Reliance on Case Laws

2.1. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Ramdev Tobacco Company
The Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted similar protections under Section 40(2) of the Central Excise Act, holding that "other legal proceedings" include only those proceedings similar to suits and prosecutions. Administrative actions taken in good faith are protected, and the limitation period of six months must be strictly adhered to.

2.2. S.P. Garg v. State of Delhi
In this case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court emphasized that prior sanction is mandatory for initiating proceedings against Customs officers for actions performed under the Act. Further, any such proceedings must be initiated within three months of the alleged act.

2.3. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni
The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that statutory protections for officers aim to prevent frivolous litigation and ensure that grievances are addressed within a reasonable time frame.

2.4. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills
The Court held that statutory protections requiring notice periods or time limitations are intended to provide an opportunity to resolve disputes without resorting to litigation and to safeguard officers acting in good faith.


3. Similar Protections Under Other Indian Laws

3.1. Central Excise Act, 1944 (Section 40(2)): Officers are protected from legal proceedings for actions taken in good faith, with a limitation period of three months for initiating complaints.

3.2. Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (Section 120): Legal proceedings must be initiated within six months of the alleged act.

3.3. Cantonment Act, 1924 (Section 273): Protects officers for acts done in good faith, with a one-month notice requirement and a six-month limitation period for suits.

3.4. Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (Section 487): Requires a two-month notice period before initiating legal action, ensuring adequate time for resolution.

3.5. The Police Act, 1861 (Section 42): Imposes a three-month limitation period for suits against police officers for acts done in good faith.


4. Application of Section 155 of the Customs Act

4.1. The Respondent acted within the scope of duties as prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962, and in good faith to enforce the law. There is no evidence of malafide intent or violation of the Act.

4.2. The present complaint has been filed beyond the statutory limitation period of three months as prescribed under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act. Therefore, the proceedings are barred by limitation and are liable to be dismissed.

4.3. The actions of the Respondent were in furtherance of statutory obligations and are protected under Section 155. The complainant has failed to demonstrate any actionable wrongdoing or lack of good faith.


5. Relief Sought

In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that:

  1. The Hon’ble Court dismiss the complaint against the Respondent as being barred by limitation under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
  2. The Hon’ble Court recognize the statutory protection granted to the Respondent for actions performed in good faith under the Customs Act, 1962.

6. Prayer for Costs

It is further prayed that the Hon’ble Court award costs to the Respondent for being subjected to unnecessary and frivolous litigation.


Submitted by:
[Name of the Counsel]
[Designation]
[Contact Information]

Date:
[Insert Date]

Place:
[Insert Place]


This reply is structured to defend the Respondent effectively using statutory protections, case laws, and comparable provisions in other laws, while emphasizing the absence of malafide intent or statutory violations

google analytics

newAD

LinkShare  Referral  Prg
drugstore.com, inc.
Google
The Right Gift at the Right Price