Aramex India Private Limited vs Union of India and Others

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges two orders Annexure J and Annexure N to the petition dated 6th June, 2014 and 27th August, 2014, both passed by the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner-company is that it is engaged in the business of carriage of time sensitive documents, parcels from one place to another, warehousing and logistics on international and national scale.

The Customs Act, 1962, in terms of section 157 empowered the Union of India and the authorities under the Customs Act, 1962, to notify The Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 (for short "the said Regulations").

The petitioner is a registered courier.

Relying upon the Regulations, it is submitted that the petitioner was entitled to a renewal of the registration but instead of considering the petitioner''s application for renewal and for a period of ten years, the petitioner''s application for renewal dated 31st January, 2014, has been dealt with in a peculiar fashion.

Since the outcome thereof was not known and the earlier registration was lapsing on 30th April, 2014, the petitioner made enquiries. Upon enquiries, the petitioner was told that the file is under process and the petitioner must not transact any business at the Courier Terminal at Mumbai till further orders.

There were certain instances and incidents in which enquiries revealed that imports contrary to the mandate of the Act and Rules had taken place and somebody associated with the petitioner played an active role therein.

Though the petitioner''s senior counsel Mr. Desai sought to argue on the merits of these allegations and further complained that an ex-parte order was passed on 6th June, 2014 - Annexure J and thereafter the second respondent also sought to confirm the version and view therein, we enquired on the earlier occasion from the counsel appearing for the respondent Mr. Jetly as to how the petitioner''s renewal application as also his complaint that he was proceeded against ex-parte would be dealt with and redressed.

Mr. Jetly, on instructions from the respondents, states that the respondents will correct a bona fide error that they have committed in making the earlier orders of 6th June, 2014 and 27th August, 2014.

He conceded that the order was passed and as the operative portion would clarify, conjointly, on the so-called enquiry and the application for renewal. This is an infraction of the regulations and particularly the exercise of the power set out in the manner therein. The respondents would now correct themselves and pass a fresh order after issuance of the show cause notice. This show cause notice would contain the relevant allegations and reference to material documents. It would also put the petitioners to notice as to what circumstances and events have led the respondents to form a prima facie belief that the registration as claimed by the petitioners cannot be renewed.

Mr. Jetly states that within four weeks from today, such a show cause notice would be drawn up and issued. Mr. Desai, on oral instructions in Court, stated that the petitioners will not insist on a personal service of this show cause notice, but even if a copy thereof with all annexures and complete is served on the petitioner''s advocate, the receipt of such copy could be taken as proof of acceptance of the said show cause notice. Even an original, if served, would be accepted by the advocate and the understanding would be on the above terms.

Thereafter, within four weeks, a detailed reply would be furnished to this show cause notice.

Mr. Jetly on further instructions states that after the detailed reply to the show cause notice is issued, a composite order would be passed within a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such reply and which would deal and dispose of the prior enquiry as also the request to renew the registration for a period of ten years as made by the petitioner.

In passing the speaking order based on this show cause notice, the respondents would not influence themselves by the observations and findings in the earlier orders. They would apply their mind afresh in passing such an order.

We clarify that we permit such a course and dispose of this petition in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the petitioner''s case. This order does not mean that we have interpreted the Regulations or accepted the interpretation placed thereon by either parties. It is in the light of this concession of Mr. Jetly and which would ensure fair and impartial treatment to the petitioner, that we have allowed the respondents to pass a composite order. All contentions of the petitioner are expressly kept open.