2022 (1) TMI 136 - HC - Customs

Seeking extension of interim order - HELD THAT - It is not necessary to delve into those aspects of the matter as learned Revenue counsel makes it clear that the impugned order has elapsed in the aforementioned manner and therefore, there is no fetters on the writ petitioner in sofar as the impugned order is concerned. This submission is recorded. It is deemed appropriate to leave open all questions including questions raised in the captioned writ petition open to be canvassed by both sides i.e., writ petitioner and Revenue, if there are any further proceedings and the same can also be assailed in a manner known to law and all questions are left open to be canvassed by both sides - captioned writ petition is disposed of as closed making it clear that all questions including questions raised in the captioned writ petition are left open to be canvassed by both sides, if the need arises on a future date in this regard.

Summary

Issues:
Extension of interim order validity under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the extension of an interim order under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The matter was listed for extension of an interim stay order granted by a predecessor judge. The interim order was initially granted on 07.07.2021 due to a prohibitory order passed against the petitioner, which was beyond the prescribed period of ninety days. The order directed an interim stay until 22.07.2021 for adjudication purposes. Subsequently, the interim order was extended by another predecessor judge on 26.10.2021. The lone respondent, Commissioner of Customs, filed a counter affidavit in response to the main writ petition challenging the Prohibition of Customs Brokers License (CBL) under Section 15 of the said Regulations.

The learned Revenue counsel argued that the impugned order prohibiting the CBL had elapsed on 25.07.2021 as per the first proviso to Regulation 15 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. He emphasized that there was no current prohibition in place. On the other hand, the counsel for the writ petitioner highlighted that the petitioner had been operating under the interim orders of the court. The judge acknowledged the positions of both sides and left all questions open for future proceedings, allowing them to be raised and addressed in accordance with the law.

The judge clarified that the impugned order had lapsed by operation of a statutory provision, despite being termed a Regulation. This fact was not disputed by the Revenue counsel, leading to the closure of the writ petition. The respondent's position, as stated in the counter affidavit, confirmed that the impugned order was an interim measure. Consequently, the captioned writ petition and the related Writ Miscellaneous Petition (WMP) were disposed of as closed, with no order as to costs. The judgment made it clear that all questions raised in the petition could be revisited by both parties in the future if necessary.