Whether permission for handling hazardous Cargo be routed through custodian?

PJ/CASE LAW/2016-17/3104

Case:-DBC PORT LOGISTICS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

Citation:-2015 (326) E.L.T. 244 (Bom.)

Brief Facts:-The Petitioners applied for permission for handling hazardous cargo. That was dated 28th November, 2014. In that application, copy of which is at Page 109 of the paper book, the Petitioners pointed out that they are making a complete application for handling the hazardous cargoes as per the requirement of the Customs Department. The application was first submitted on 10th October, 2014, but the Commissioner of Customs (CFS) Management Cell, Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Sheva, Navi Mumbai informed the Petitioner that they must re-submit the application via JNPT. That was done on 22nd October, 2014, but the JNPT has not submitted their application to the Commissioner of Customs. In these circumstances, by this application, the Petitioners prayed to process their case and grant the handling permission. They specifically stated that the matter involving them and Customs is sub-judice and will take its own time to resolve.

By the impugned communication, this application has been refused or in a way the Petitioners have been informed that it cannot be processed further. Reference is made to the very legal proceedings.

Appellant’s Contention:-The Petitioner has invited our attention to the Handling of Cargo and Customs Area Regulations, 2009 and the definitions therein particularly of the words “Customs Cargo Service Provider” in Regulation 2(b). The Petitioner has invited Court’s attention to the conditions to be fulfilled by the Customs Cargo Service Provider. The Petitioner has also invited Court’s attention to the details of the application and equally the stand of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as reflected in their affidavit-in-reply. The arguments center around the submission and furnishing of Bank Guarantee, which the Petitioners submitted that they are not required to furnish, as Regulation 5 itself clarifies this aspect.

Respondent’s Contention:-The Respondent submits that in the light of these Regulations, the Petitioners’ application can be processed further and without the tag/label that it is submitted through JNPT. If the appointment is sought in terms of the Regulations, then, irrespective of what is stated in the impugned communication and the issues in the pending litigation, in terms of these Regulations, the Petitioners’ application can be processed. It can be processed and a decision taken thereon in accordance with law. The respondent also has not disputed the position that the application can be considered independent of the proceedings before this Court and the stand of the JNPT, but in terms of the Regulations.

Reasoning of Judgment:- The High Court heard the both parties and therefore, direct that the application of the Petitioner shall be processed without in any manner being influenced by the impugned communication and the issues in the pending litigation, but strictly in terms of the Regulations and in accordance with law. Let that application be processed and accordingly the decision communicated to the Petitioners as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions.

Decision:-With the aforesaid directions, the Petition is disposed of.

Comment:-The Crux of this case is that the assessee has filed application for handling hazardous cargo. But as per Custom Areas Regulations, 2009. application by person for engaging in cargo handling require to be routed through custodian only. The High Court rightly decide that the Petitioner’s application can be processed in terms of impugned Regulations. The High court directed the department to give a decision on petitioner’s application within six weeks

Prepared by: Bharat Rathore

Comments

PJ/CASE LAW/2016-17/3104

Post a Comment

Query