2021 (10) TMI 436 - HC - Customs

Permission for amendment of IGM - Seeking direction to allow the name of the consignee to be changed - HELD THAT - Considering the law laid down by this court, it would be in the interest of justice if the Competent Authority viz. the Joint or the Assistant Commissioner of Customs grants a personal hearing to the petitioners and considers the prayer of the petitioners on its own merits well within the scope of sub-section 3 of section 30 of the Customs Act, by a reasoned order after hearing all parties following principles of natural justice. The application made for amendment or substitution to the Import General Manifest be considered in accordance with law expeditiously and in any event with a period of 6 weeks from October 20, 2021 after hearing all parties. The petitioners to appear before the Competent Authority on October 20, 2021 at 11.00 a.m. - List this writ petition on December 3, 2021.

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment to Import General Manifest (IGM) to change the consignee's name.
2. Failure of respondent to process the application for change in consignee's name.
3. Justification for auctioning the goods by the Customs authorities.
4. Application of legal precedents in similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners sought a mandamus to direct respondents to allow the amendment to IGM changing the consignee's name. The petitioners, engaged in import-export, had a contract with M/s. Venture Impex for Rubber Processing Oil. Due to non-clearance of goods by M/s. Venture Impex, the petitioners secured a buyer, M/s. Amit Petrolubes Pvt. Ltd., and applied for the consignee name change. Respondent failed to process the application as per Customs Act, leading to the auction of goods.

2. The petitioners contended that respondent's failure to process the name change application was in violation of Customs Act provisions. Citing legal precedents, the petitioners argued that if the original consignee abandons goods, obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) is not necessary. The court emphasized the need for the Competent Authority to consider the application on its merits following natural justice principles within a specified time frame.

3. The Customs justified auctioning the goods, stating that a bill of entry was filed by M/s. Venture Impex, indicating no abandonment of goods. However, the court directed a personal hearing for the petitioners by the Competent Authority to decide on the application for amendment expeditiously, restraining further auction actions until a decision is made.

4. Legal precedents like Rakesh Dhir Vs. Union of India, Glencore Agriculture India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, and Agrocorp International PTE. Ltd. Vs. Union of India were cited to support the petitioners' case. The court emphasized the authority's duty to exercise discretion as per statutory requirements and principles of natural justice, ensuring a fair consideration of the petitioners' request for amendment to IGM.