2020 (11) TMI 252 - HC - Customs

Territorial Jurisdiction - Petitioner says that the order having been passed by the Deputy Director General is without jurisdiction and as such the same is required to be set aside on the jurisdiction ground alone - HELD THAT - Justice will be subserved if the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.3 who has unlimited jurisdiction as to the value of authorisation to decide the case afresh on the basis of the show cause notice dated 6th June, 2018 appearing at page 303 of the writ petition (Annexure P- 10) issued by the respondents. All points are kept open. The petitioners shall be at liberty to rely upon the document which forms part of the writ petition. The respondents shall also be entitled to rely upon the document in their possession which does not form part of the writ petition since I have not called for any affidavit. The respondent no.3 shall be at liberty to decide the issue within 31st December, 2020 after affording an opportunity to the writ petitioners to represent its case - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of Regional Authority, Value of goods and services covered by authorization, Remand of the case

Jurisdiction of Regional Authority:
The writ petitioners challenged an order passed by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, arguing that the order was without jurisdiction as the Regional Authority for their case should have been the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade based on the provisions in the Appendices and Aayat Niryat Forms. The petitioners referred to specific entries in the appendices to support their argument. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the designation of the officer to decide the dispute is based on the value of the goods and services covered by the authorization, which in this case was around ?6.52 crores. The respondents argued that the Deputy Director General, with jurisdiction up to ?10 crores, was entitled to adjudicate the dispute. The court considered these arguments and decided to remand the matter back to a different officer with unlimited jurisdiction to decide the case afresh based on the show cause notice issued by the respondents.

Value of goods and services covered by authorization:
The dispute between the parties also involved the interpretation of the notification regarding the value of goods and services covered by the authorization. The petitioners argued that the notification related to penalty and not the authorization amount. This argument was disputed by the respondents. The court did not delve into the dispute regarding the value of the authorization but instead focused on remanding the case for fresh adjudication.

Remand of the case:
The court decided that justice would be served by remanding the case back to a different officer with unlimited jurisdiction to decide the matter afresh. The court set a deadline for the decision to be made by the end of December 2020, allowing both parties to rely on relevant documents. The court emphasized that only broad compliance of principles of natural justice was required due to the prevailing pandemic situation. The court clarified that since no affidavit was called for, all allegations in the writ petition were deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents. The court disposed of the writ petition along with the relevant application, bringing the matter to a close.