2016 (10) TMI 1344 - HC - Customs

Suspension of license for dealing with Ammonium Nitrate - rejection of import of Ammonium Nitrate - prohibited goods or not - HELD THAT - It appears that P3 licence has been obtained by the petitioner/appellant to deal with Ammonium Nitrate and other such chemicals either for the purpose of agriculture or for quarrying, etc. As per the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, it appears that wayback in 2012, the Rules came into force which was later amended on 21.6.2013 and thereafter the licence granted to the petitioner/appellant was suspended on 20.5.2016. In the interregnum, there is an import of huge quantity of Ammonium Nitrate which is now lying in the Chennai Port. In the circumstances, a show cause notice is also shown to have been issued to the petitioner/appellant as per the provisions of Section 6(#) of Explosives Act, 1884 and Rule 42 of Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012. As against the show cause notice issued by the second respondent, an appeal lies to the Chief Controller of Explosives. Whether the petitioner/appellant violated the norms of the Rules, etc. or whether they are entitled to seek permission for moving the goods which are now lying in the Chennai Port etc., all these things would be subject matters to be considered by the appropriate authority viz., the Chief Controller of Explosives, who has got better experience as to the violation of the petitioner/appellant, if any, and after affording an opportunity to the petitioner/appellant, he may come to the right conclusion as per the Rules - the petitioner/appellant shall file an application, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on receipt of such application, the same shall be decided by the Chief Controller of Explosives, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner/appellant, within a period of fifteen days thereafter. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of P5 license for importing Ammonium Nitrate
2. Suspension of P3 license as an interim measure
3. Seizure of goods consigned by overseas supplier
4. Violation of Ammonium Nitrate Rules 2012
5. Show cause notice issued under Explosives Act, 1884 and Rule 42 of Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012
6. Appeal process for show cause notice and license rejection

Analysis:
The appellant, a P3 license holder for dealing with Ammonium Nitrate, had applied for a P5 license to import the same, which was rejected by the first respondent. Additionally, the P3 license was suspended as an interim measure. The appellant's goods consigned by an overseas supplier were seized at Chennai Port. The main contention raised was that the rules were amended after the appellant obtained the P3 license, and the suspension and show cause notice issued were deemed unlawful. The court noted that the matter falls under the purview of the Chief Controller of Explosives, who has the authority to decide on violations and permissions related to the goods. The appellant was directed to file an application for consideration by the Chief Controller of Explosives within a week, and any appeal regarding the license rejection should be made to the Central Government. The court emphasized that decisions should not be influenced by the previous judgment of the Single Judge.

In conclusion, the writ appeals were disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The judgment highlighted the importance of following the proper appeal processes and allowing the relevant authorities to make decisions regarding violations and permissions concerning the import and handling of Ammonium Nitrate in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.