2001 (4) TMI 100 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and legality of Public Notice No. 9/2001-Customs.
2. Authority of the Commissioner to issue the public notice.
3. Alleged monopoly conferred on CONCOR.
4. Petitioner's right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
5. Role and obligations of a Customs House Agent (CHA).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Legality of Public Notice No. 9/2001-Customs:
The petitioner challenged the public notice issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Guntur, arguing that it conferred a monopoly on CONCOR for the transportation of goods, thereby ousting the petitioner from the business. The court examined the public notice and found it to be in conformity with the Rules framed by the Board and the Circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance, particularly the Circulars dated 30-6-1995, 14-12-1995, and 4-8-1998. These circulars clearly established that the procedure prescribed under the impugned public notice was consistent with the instructions issued by the competent authority.

2. Authority of the Commissioner to Issue the Public Notice:
The petitioner contended that the Commissioner lacked the authority to issue the impugned public notice. However, the court held that the Commissioner was well within his powers to prescribe procedures to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Customs Act, the Rules, and the Regulations framed thereunder. The court emphasized that the Commissioner's actions were in line with the guidelines provided by the Ministry of Finance and the Central Board of Excise and Customs.

3. Alleged Monopoly Conferred on CONCOR:
The petitioner argued that the public notice created a monopoly in favor of CONCOR, violating the petitioner's right to carry on trade or business. The court found no merit in this contention, stating that the impugned action was a measure to protect the revenue of the Government of India and in the public interest. The court referenced several judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, to support the view that there is no fundamental right to insist upon the Government or governmental authorities to do business with any particular individual or entity. The court also noted that similar facilities could be created in Guntur if the petitioner fulfilled the requirements.

4. Petitioner's Right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:
The petitioner claimed that the public notice violated their right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on any trade or business of their choice. The court rejected this argument, stating that the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) does not extend to insisting that the Government or governmental authorities must do business with the petitioner. The court reiterated that the policy decision to confer monopoly on CONCOR was neither capricious, arbitrary, nor whimsical, and thus did not violate the postulates of Article 14 of the Constitution.

5. Role and Obligations of a Customs House Agent (CHA):
The petitioner contended that transportation of goods was a major activity of any CHA and that the Customs House Agents Licensing Rules, 1984, recognized this role. The court disagreed, clarifying that the role of a CHA is limited to the obligations laid down in Regulation 14, which do not include transportation of goods. The court referred to the definition of a CHA and various regulations to conclude that the CHA's responsibilities are confined to the customs station and the clearance of goods. The court also cited the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in D. Sengupta v. Collector of Customs, which supported the view that the CHA's role ceases once the goods are cleared from the customs station.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner company could not be considered an aggrieved person and that the petitioner had not made out any case on merits warranting the court's interference. The public notice was found to be valid, legal, and within the authority of the Commissioner, and the alleged monopoly conferred on CONCOR was justified as a policy decision in the public interest.