2013 (1) TMI 151 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction of court - DEPB licenses - Petitioners purchased through their agents, three DEPB licenses - DEPB licences were obtained through fraud - Customs authorities refused to permit imports against such license Held that - The DEPB licences were issued in favour of M/s. Yash Exports at Varanasi. The port of export was shown at Varanasi. The licences were issued by DGFT, New Delhi. Such licences were transferred in favour of the petitioners also by the same authority. On the basis of purchase of such licences the petitioners imported goods which landed at Mumbai. The customs authorities at Mumbai refused to permit imports thereof on the basis of the DEPB licences so purchased by the petitioners. Clearly no part of the cause of action can be stated to have arisen within the local limits of this court. The ultimate order that the Joint Director of Foreign Trade passed was also at New Delhi. The ultimate order cancelling the licences which the petitioners have challenged in the petition subsequently, was also passed by the authority at New Delhi. Merely because the officer of DRI issued a summons to the petitioners during the course of investigation, would not give any jurisdiction to us to entertain this petition. In favour of revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the action by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Varanasi in not issuing Re-transfer Release Advices for DEPB licences.
2. Validity of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade's order canceling the DEPB licences.
3. Territorial jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court to entertain the petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the action by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Varanasi in not issuing Re-transfer Release Advices for DEPB licences:
The petitioners initially sought a writ declaring the action of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Varanasi, in not issuing Re-transfer Release Advices for three DEPB licences purchased by them as illegal and bad in law. They requested a direction for the authority to issue such Release Advices. The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing detergent products, had purchased three DEPB licences issued to M/s. Yash Exports. These licences were endorsed in favor of the petitioners, who then attempted to use them to pay customs duty on imported goods necessary for their manufacturing. The customs authorities refused to permit the imports using these DEPB credits, leading to the filing of the petition.

2. Validity of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade's order canceling the DEPB licences:
During the pendency of the petition, the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, issued an order on March 30, 2000, canceling the three DEPB licences. The petitioners amended their petition to challenge this cancellation order. The petitioners argued that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of any fraud and that the DEPB licences were freely transferable and issued after verification of actual exports. They contended that the authorities erred in not accepting the licences already endorsed in their favor. Conversely, the respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the DEPB licences were obtained through fraud, as M/s. Yash Exports was non-existent, and the exports were never made. They claimed that the petitioners could not benefit from the fraudulent licences.

3. Territorial jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court to entertain the petition:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court. They argued that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, as the main relief was against the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Varanasi, and other authorities located outside Gujarat. The petitioners contended that their registered office was in Gujarat, and the impact of the impugned action was felt there, thus conferring jurisdiction on the court. However, the court noted that the DEPB licences were issued in Varanasi, the goods were imported at Mumbai, and the customs authorities at Mumbai refused the imports. The court concluded that no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in National Textile Corpn. Ltd. vs. M/s. Haribox Swalram, which held that facts not integral to the cause of action do not confer territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Gujarat High Court decided to first address the issue of territorial jurisdiction. Upon examining the facts, the court determined that no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits. Consequently, the petition was rejected on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction without addressing the merits of the case. The court discharged the rule and vacated the interim relief. Additionally, Civil Application No.6127/2000 and Civil Application No.3734/2000 were disposed of in light of the main order.