9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he UK Company) for import of two RMI Board for Civil Aircraft Avionics . The goods were to be shipped CIF and the petitioner was responsible to deliver the same to PHHL. The petitioner company procured the goods from M/s South East Aerospace of Australia. However, the said company, instead of shipping to PHHL, shipped them to M/s Magnum Aviation Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Indian Company). Since the petitioner was responsible to ensure delivery of the goods to PHHL, it requested the Indian Company to arrange for the clearance of the consignment for onward delivery to PHHL. One Santosh Kumar of the Indian Company was entrusted with the job of getting the consignment cleared from customs. It would be pertinent to note here that PHHL was entitled to claim exemption from the custom duty in respect of the above referred goods. Mr. Santosh Kumar in order to get the goods cleared from customs without payment of customs duty, forged an undertaking purported to be executed by Shri Ramesh Chand of PHHL and submitted the same to the Customs Department. He not only got a forged rubber stamp of PHHL prepared from the market without any authorization in this regard, but also f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this writ petition came up for hearing on 17.8.2010, the Court was informed that the Appellate Authority in this matter would be the Board of Directors. The Court, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall file a proper appeal before the said Appellate Authority and a decision taken by the Board after giving personal hearing to the petitioner would be communicated to it within one week of the said decision being taken. 5. Vide order dated 8.11.2010, the Board of Directors of PHHL dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The writ petition was then amended so as to challenge the said order as well. 6. Impugned orders were assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the following grounds; (i) the show cause notice was issued by the Deputy General Manager, who in view of the guidelines dated 30.7.2009 on Banning Business Dealings , was not competent to issue such notice (ii) the petitioner has been deprived of the right of second appeal to the Board since its first appeal itself was heard by the Board in view of the impugned order dated 7.6.2010 having been passed by the CMD of PHHL (iii) there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner company and, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be passed by the CMD of PHHL and being a authority higher than the Executive Director/ General Manager, he was competent to pass such order. It is true that on account of the banning order having been passed by CMD, the petitioner was deprived of filing a second appeal but, that to my mind, would not be material, considering the order passed by this Court on 17.8.2010, which expressly directed appeal to the Board of Directors, thereby leaving no scope for a second appeal. In any case, as noted earlier, the banning guidelines were not at all applicable in the case of the petitioner, the same having come into force at a much later date and on having been agreed to by the petitioner. In any case, the appeal of the petitioner having been considered by the Board, which is the second appellate authority, under the guidelines, no prejudice to the petitioner was caused due to denial of one appeal. I, therefore, find no merit in the first two contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. As regards the third contention, it is petitioner s own case that it had requested the Indian Company to take steps for clearance of the consignment with the Customs. The Indian Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndian company. In fact, in a letter sent to PHHL on the letterhead of the petitioner UK Company, Mr. Santosh Kumar described him as Manager (Shipping) of the petitioner company. There could be no reason for Mr. Santosh Kumar to falsely claim to be the Manager with the petitioner UK Company in this letter dated 4.11.2008 which was sent much before this consignment got stuck with Customs Department. This letter in fact clearly shows that Mr. Santosh Kumar was an employee of the petitioner company though he simultaneously would be an employee of the Indian Company. 11. A perusal of letter dated 12.6.2003 sent to PHHL would also show that one Director of the petitioner company was also a Director of Indian Company. Mr. Inder Kumar Bisnoi, Managing Director of the petitioner company was a Director of the Indian Company, though he claims to have been appointed with effect from 7.4.2008. The declaration in this regard was filed only on 1.7.2010 which indicates that the said resignation could be antedated by him. The commonalty of the Director is to be viewed in the light of the statement of Mr. Santosh Kumar claiming the petitioner UK Company to be a foreign company of the Indian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich, however, decided not to reduce the period of banning. As noted earlier, in such matters, the Court cannot substitute its own view for the view of the Competent Authority unless the said view is shown to be wholly arbitrary, unreasonable or perverse. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the extent Mr. Santosh Kumar had gone for the purpose of getting the consignment cleared, the view taken by the CMD of PHHL, which has been confirmed by the then Board of Directors cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary so as to call for an interference by the Court. Moreoever, considering that Shri Santosh Kumar had personal interest in the matter and therefore no incentive to go to the extent of forging stamp of PHHL and signatures of its officials, there is a reasonable probability of the senior management of the petitioner having given nod to what Mr. Santosh Kumar did, to get the consignment released. I, therefore, find no good ground to reduce the period for which the petitioner company has been banned from dealing with PHHL. 14. I also feel that the petitioner has not disclosed the true state of affairs to the Court since it took the stand that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
