2015 (10) TMI 2031 - HC - Customs

Customs House Agent - Notice issued under Section 124 of Customs Act - License revoked but itself expired on 25.10.2014; made petitions infructous - Appellant rejected the applications of Respondent for renewal of the license - Held That - Order refusing to renew licence has already been challenged thus issues raised in writ appeals do not actually warrant any adjudication, as they are virtually infructuous - Appeal disposed without expressing any opinion on the findings; MP s closed - Contempt petition filed by respondent will not be pressed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging suspension order and show cause notice under Customs House Licence Regulations, 2004; Validity of writ petitions; Infructuous nature of writ appeals due to expired licence; Rejection of renewal application post disposal of writ petitions; Pending challenge to refusal of renewal in new writ petitions.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras pertains to the Commissioner of Customs challenging a common order allowing two writ petitions filed by the respondent. The respondent, a Customs House Agent, had been issued a licence valid until 25.10.2014, following which a show cause notice was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act based on an investigation by the Air Cargo Intelligence Unit. Subsequently, an order of suspension of the licence was passed, followed by an Order in Original continuing the suspension and a show cause notice for licence revocation under Regulation 22.

The writ petitions filed by the respondent challenging the order of suspension continuation and the revocation notice were allowed by the learned Judge, quashing both the show cause notice and the suspension order. However, the judgment highlights that the writ appeals have become infructuous due to the expiry of the licence on 25.10.2014, which was not brought to the notice of the court earlier. The application for renewal, though already submitted during the subsistence of the licence, remained pending till the disposal of the writ petitions, rendering the focus of the court on the revocation of an already expired licence.

Moreover, post the disposal of the writ petitions, the appellant rejected the respondent's applications for licence renewal, leading to new writ petitions challenging this rejection. Given these developments, the court found the issues raised in the writ appeals to be virtually infructuous. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ appeals without expressing any opinion on the earlier findings, allowing both parties to address the renewal issue in the pending writ petitions, with no costs imposed. Additionally, it was noted that the respondent's contempt petition would not be pursued following the disposal of the writ appeals.