2022 (7) TMI 106 - HC - Customs

Seeking direction to entrust the pending litigation against the M/s. Plus Duty Free (Pvt.) Limited/1st respondent to some other officer - HELD THAT - By preserving all the rights available to the 1st respondent against the order dated 05.04.2022 and granting liberty to the 1st respondent to work out the remedies in accordance with law within a week from today and in the interregnum the order dated 5.4.2022 is kept in abeyance. The writ appeal stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Setting aside of Exts.P18 and P19 and allowing M/s. Plus Duty Free (Pvt.) Limited to continue business operations.
2. Cancellation of Special Warehouse Licence No.01/2017-18 issued to the 1st respondent.
3. Appeal filed by the 1st respondent before the Tribunal and inability to get the Interlocutory Application listed due to vacant posts.
4. Preservation of rights available to the 1st respondent against the order dated 05.04.2022.
5. Entrusting further proceedings to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Ernakulam.
6. Clarification regarding observations made against the officer in the impugned judgment.
7. Adjudication of questions and consequences before the Tribunal or Court independently.

Analysis:

1. The judgment under appeal set aside Exts.P18 and P19, allowing M/s. Plus Duty Free (Pvt.) Limited to continue business operations. The second appellant was directed to entrust the pending litigation against M/s. Plus Duty Free (Pvt.) Limited to another officer. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) subsequently canceled the Special Warehouse Licence issued to the 1st respondent, which was deemed appealable before the Tribunal.

2. The 1st respondent had already filed an appeal before the Tribunal but faced challenges in getting the Interlocutory Application listed due to vacant posts. The Court preserved the rights of the 1st respondent against the order dated 05.04.2022, granting liberty to work out remedies within a week while keeping the order in abeyance.

3. The Court appreciated the submission by Mr. Santhosh Mathew and clarified that further proceedings following the order dated 05.04.2022 would be taken up and concluded by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Ernakulam. Observations made in the impugned judgment against the officer were clarified to have no further effect on the individual officer.

4. It was emphasized that all questions and consequences arising from the proceedings should be adjudicated independently before the Tribunal or Court, without influence from the impugned judgment. The Court did not express any view on the merits of the issues examined in the case, disposing of the Writ Appeal accordingly.