2012 (9) TMI 278 - HC - Customs

Writ of Prohibition - directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents that all adjudication proceedings, to ensure that there are no divergent orders Held that - Department has been issuing Notification/Order under Sub-section (1) of the Section 4 and Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Customs Act, 1962 to appoint an officer of Customs to act as a common adjudicating authority to exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on the officer for the purpose of adjudicating matters relating to Show Cause Notice issued by the concerned Commissionerates/Sponsoring Authorities on the basis of their recommendation to appoint a common adjudicating authority - request from Petitioner has been received by the Board on the subject. The request is under examination - writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent to decide the request of the petitioner

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of prayer (d) in the writ petition regarding adjudication proceedings against the petitioners.
2. Examination of the department's practice of appointing a common adjudicating authority under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Disposal of the writ petition and the direction given to the respondent regarding the petitioner's request.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of prayer (d) in the writ petition. The petitioner sought a Writ of Prohibition or a similar order to direct the 1st and 2nd Respondents to conduct all adjudication proceedings against the petitioners in relation to specific vessels in a unified jurisdiction to avoid conflicting orders. The petitioner specifically wanted to ensure that all proceedings are conducted together without any divergence in outcomes.

2. The examination of the department's practice under the Customs Act, 1962 was a significant aspect of the judgment. The respondent, represented by learned counsel, presented a letter dated 24th March, 2011, outlining the department's procedure of appointing a common adjudicating authority to handle matters related to Show Cause Notices issued by different Commissionerates or Sponsoring Authorities. The respondent highlighted that they were examining a request from the petitioner in this case regarding the appointment of a common adjudicating authority.

3. The writ petition was ultimately disposed of by the court with a specific direction to the respondent. The court directed the respondent to decide on the petitioner's request within six weeks from the date of communication of the order. Additionally, the court made it clear that if the decision on the request is adverse, the petitioner has the option to revive the writ petition. This disposal provided a clear timeline and recourse for the petitioner based on the respondent's decision.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the key issues of interpreting the prayer in the writ petition, examining the department's practices under the Customs Act, and providing a definitive direction for the disposal of the case. The court's decision to instruct the respondent to decide on the petitioner's request within a specified timeframe added clarity and a course of action for both parties involved in the legal proceedings.