9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttil,sc,cb Ex, Adv. Sri V Santharam, Sri M Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Sri P Gopinath, Shri P Benny Thomas, Sri K John Mathai, Sri Joson Manavalan, Sri Kuryan Thomas, Advs. JUDGMENT The petitioners, who are the authorised courier agency registered under the provisions of the Courier Import and Export (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 and who are functioning in the Trivandrum International Airport since 2009 pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 has approached this Court alleging inertia on the part of the respondents in not permitting the petitioners to carry on their trade and seeking the following reliefs: i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to resume courier operations at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to provide all necessary facilities to the petitioners for the courier operations at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport; iii) Declare that the inertia exhibited by the respondents in not permitting the petitioners to resume the courier operations is violative of the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis. True copy of Instruction G.No.450/59/2010-Cus IV dated 6.4.2011 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi is produced as Ext.R4. True copy of Instruction F.No.8/B/52/HRD(HRM) 2012 dated 4.4.2014 of the Directorate General of Human Resource Development, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi is produced as Ext.R5. True copy of Instruction F.No.8/B/12/HRD(EMC)/2014 dated 23.6.2014 of the Directorate General of Human Resources Development, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi is produced as Ext.R6. In view of the above instructions, the 2nd respondent has, by letter dated 28.1.2015, informed the 3rd respondent that it is imperative that they should comply with the mandatory conditions prescribed under Regulation 5 of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 and also pointing out that Regulation 10 of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 enjoins that prior to approval of a custodian/customs cargo service provider the conditions under Regulation 6 shall be fulfilled by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Customs. True copy of letter dated 28.1.2015 of the 2nd respondent addressed to the third respondent is produced as E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.V.Santharam, the learned standing counsel for the Airport Authority of India. 10. Mr.Jayashankar argued that the petitioners are eligible to continue operations as authorised couriersunder CIECR as is evident from Exts.P9 to P16 and in such circumstances the action on the part of the respondents in not permitting the petitioners to resume operations even after the license is restored is a flagrant violation of the fundamental right of the petitioners. 11. It was pointed out that the petitioners have huge expenses for setting up their offices and other infrastructural facilities which are still maintained by them on the expectation that the petitioners would be permitted to resume their work. They are retaining the staff, the telephone connections, hired vehicles etc. and are thus incurring a monthly expense of approximately ₹ 75,000/- each. The losses, though not quantifiable in terms of money would approximately come to about ₹ 40,00,000/- till date, excluding the loss of business, loss of reputation etc. 12. Since 2012, the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment of Kerala wherein officials of Central Excise Customs (2nd respondent), Air Port Authority of India and the 4th respondent were present. In the said meeting, the custodianship given to the 4th respondent can be cancelled and be returned to Airport Authority of India as held by it earlier. It has also been decided to take necessary steps to notify Airport Authority of India as the custodian for operating international courier cargo terminal as requested by the Airport Authority of India to resolve the present issue and commence the courier operations from Thiruvananthapuram International Airport at the earliest. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Thiruvananthapuram has been requested by the Airport Authority of India to issue necessary notification for custodianship and operation of courier terminal intimating that the rules and regulations and other formalities with respect to operation of courier terminal would be maintained by the Airport Authority of India's handling agent, the 4th respondent which would be ensured by the Airport Authority of India as custodian. The lease agreement between the 4th respondent and Airport Authority of India for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e third respondent under Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 unless specifically exempted by an order of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil has submitted that no such orders have been issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Central Board of Excise and Customs have issued several instructions to the effect that no new customs facilities shall be operationalised without proper sanction of posts on cost recovery basis. 15. Therefore, on a consideration of the entire materials now placed on record, this Court is of the view that the present stalemate is only because of the communication gap between the third respondent and the first respondent regarding cost recovery charges. The petitioners are penalised on account of the same. Though it is imperative that the third respondent should comply with the mandatory conditions prescribed under Regulation 5 of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations 2009, respondents 1 and 2 should not have prevented the petitioners from conducting their operations. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to issue necessary notification p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
