2015 (3) TMI 28 - HC - Customs

Permission for stuffing of the goods at the factory at Silvasa has been denied or not renewed on account of pendency of proceedings under the law applicable to the exports or activities of the Petitioners in relation thereto - Held that - The argument of the Petitioner's counsel is that in the teeth of such communications and coming from the officers at the local level, the port Officers deny this facility because of the legal proceedings. It is argued that there is no complaint of the goods being not accessed or the supervision becoming impossible or difficult if the goods are allowed to be stuffed at the factory. - Respondent stated on instructions that in the event a fresh application is made by the Petitioners and seeking similar facility, that application would be considered by keeping in mind the conditional no objection from the Range Office and brought on record at page 52 to 56 of the paper book. This stipulation is contained in the letters, inter alia, dated 2nd August, 2013. - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of permission for factory stuffing of export goods.
2. Pendency of legal proceedings affecting the permission.
3. Request for writ of Certiorari and Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners sought permission for factory stuffing of goods intended for export at their own factory, subject to compliance with all legal requirements. However, permission was denied due to ongoing legal proceedings related to the petitioners' export activities. The petitioners argued that despite past no-objection communications from local officers, the port officers refused the facility due to the legal proceedings, even though goods access and supervision were not problematic if stuffing was allowed at the factory.

2. The Court acknowledged the limitations on its jurisdiction regarding policy matters and refrained from delving into such controversies. The petitioners' complaint highlighted the need for the facility despite legal proceedings. The Revenue agreed to consider a fresh application for the facility without being influenced by previous rejections, based on conditional no-objection communications from local officers. The Court accepted the Revenue's undertaking to process the fresh application impartially within 8 weeks, considering all relevant documents and allowing a personal hearing if requested by the petitioners.

3. The Court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing that the decision did not imply an opinion on the arguments presented. It directed the competent authority to issue a speaking order after considering all contentions and relevant documents. The Court clarified that the Revenue should not be swayed by the arguments raised during the court proceedings or in the affidavit filed for the writ petition. The petitioners were granted a personal hearing due to the discontinuation of a previously granted facility, with the decision not setting a precedent for similar cases.