2015 (10) TMI 1910 - HC - Customs

Rejection of application for handling hazardous cargo - Petitioner was informed that only JNPT can apply for authorization in CFS; application thus cannot be processed Held That - Application can be considered independent of the proceedings and the stand of the JNPT, but in terms of the Regulations; thus same be processed without being influenced by the communication in any manner within 6 weeks Decided in favour of Petitioner.

Issues:
1) Refusal of processing the application for handling hazardous cargo by the Petitioners.
2) Interpretation of regulations regarding the submission of applications for handling hazardous cargoes.
3) Dispute regarding the submission process of the application via Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT).
4) Legal implications of the communication refusing the processing of the Petitioners' application.

Analysis:

1) The Petitioners had applied for permission to handle hazardous cargo, but their application was not processed further due to a communication stating that only JNPT, as the custodian, could apply for authorization. The Petitioners were informed that their application cannot proceed based on this communication.

2) The Petitioners' application highlighted their compliance with Customs Department requirements for handling hazardous cargoes. Despite submitting the application twice, once directly and then through JNPT, the Commissioner of Customs directed them to resubmit via JNPT. The Petitioners requested processing of their application, emphasizing the ongoing legal proceedings between them and Customs.

3) The dispute arose from the requirement that the application must be submitted via JNPT, leading to the refusal to process the Petitioners' application. The communication cited the involvement of legal proceedings as a reason for the refusal.

4) The Senior Counsel for the Petitioner argued based on the Handling of Cargo and Customs Area Regulations, 2009, emphasizing the definition of "Customs Cargo Service Provider" and the conditions to be fulfilled. The dispute centered around the submission of a Bank Guarantee, which the Petitioners argued was not required as per Regulation 5.

5) The Court did not delve into the regulations as the crux of the issue was the refusal to process the Petitioners' application based on the submission process. The refusal was solely on the grounds that JNPT should make the application, not the Petitioners.

6) Upon finding that the refusal was solely based on the submission process, the Court referred to relevant regulations and circulars. The Respondent acknowledged that the Petitioners' application could be processed independently of JNPT submission, as per the regulations and circulars cited.

7) The Respondent agreed that the Petitioners' application could proceed as per regulations, regardless of the impugned communication and pending litigation. The application should be processed and a decision made in accordance with the law.

8) The Respondent did not contest that the application could be considered independently of the ongoing proceedings, emphasizing compliance with regulations.

9) The Court directed that the Petitioners' application be processed strictly as per regulations and the law, without influence from the communication or pending litigation. A decision was to be communicated within six weeks, clarifying that no opinion was expressed on the conflicting contentions.

10) The Court disposed of the Petition with the directions for processing the application in adherence to regulations and the law, independent of external influences.

← Previous Next →