2016 (3) TMI 429 - HC - Customs

Writ petition - Entitlement to renewal of registration - For 10 years - Held that - respondents agreed to correct a bona fide error that they have committed in making the earlier orders. They also conceded that the order was passed and as the operative portion would clarify, conjointly, on the so-called enquiry and the application for renewal. This is an infraction of the regulations and particularly the exercise of the power set out in the manner therein. The respondents would now correct themselves and pass a fresh order after issuance of the show cause notice. This show cause notice would contain the relevant allegations and reference to material documents. It would also put the petitioners to notice as to what circumstances and events have led the respondents to form a prima facie belief that the registration as claimed by the petitioners cannot be renewed. After the detailed reply to the show cause notice is issued, a composite order would be passed within a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such reply and which would deal and dispose of the prior enquiry as also the request to renew the registration for a period of ten years as made by the petitioner. - Decided against appellant

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to two orders under Article 226 - Customs Act, 1962 - Renewal of registration for courier services - Allegations of improper imports - Corrective measures by respondents - Show cause notice issuance - Detailed reply submission - Composite order passing.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Orders under Article 226:
The petition under Article 226 challenges two orders passed by the second respondent, concerning the renewal of registration for a courier company engaged in time-sensitive document carriage and logistics on an international and national scale.

2. Customs Act, 1962 and Courier Regulations:
The Customs Act, 1962 empowered the Union of India to notify The Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998. The petitioner, a registered courier, sought renewal of registration under these regulations.

3. Improper Imports Allegations:
Enquiries revealed instances of imports contrary to the Act and Rules, implicating someone associated with the petitioner. The petitioner's senior counsel argued against these allegations, highlighting the ex-parte order passed on 6th June, 2014.

4. Corrective Measures and Show Cause Notice:
Respondent's counsel acknowledged errors in the previous orders and committed to issuing a fresh show cause notice within four weeks. This notice would outline allegations, reference material documents, and explain the basis for not renewing the petitioner's registration.

5. Detailed Reply and Composite Order:
Upon receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner was to provide a detailed reply within four weeks. Subsequently, a composite order would be passed within another four weeks, addressing both the prior enquiry and the renewal request, ensuring a fair and impartial treatment to the petitioner.

6. Judicial Clarification and Disposition:
The court clarified that the permission granted did not imply an interpretation of the Regulations or acceptance of any party's interpretation. The respondents were directed to pass a speaking order based on the show cause notice, independently of previous findings, to ensure a fair resolution while keeping all contentions of the petitioner open for future consideration.