Dismissed

Joakim Yesudasan v. the Commissioner of Customs

Kerala HC11 Jan 2019WP(C)/720/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed three connected writ petitions challenging a Customs show cause notice and penalty order. Held that the statutory appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act to CESTAT constitutes an efficacious alternative remedy, requiring the petitioners to approach that tribunal instead of this Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed, and petitioners were directed to pursue their remedies before the appellate authority under Section 129A.

Joakim Yesudasan Vs the Commissioner of Customs — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 21ST POUSHA, 1940

¶4

WP(C).No. 302 of 2019

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

1 M/S MBK LOGISTIX PRIVATE LIMITED 39/6720-H,BAB TOWER, MG ROAD, KOCHI-682015, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 58, S/O. P.J.WILLIAMS, RESIDING PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, VELI ROAD, H.NO.9/355 D, FOR COCHIN682001.

¶7

2 ANITA PRABHAKER, AGED 42 YEARS W/O. M.PRABHAKER KINI, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.6A, SFS BAVERLY PARK, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682020.

¶8

3 SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. P.J.WILLIAMS, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, VELI ROAD, H.NO.9/355 D, FORT COCHIN682001.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR SHEBA RIVY SIMON SMT.LINTA VARGHESE SMT.T.S.LIKHITHA

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶12

2 CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, 110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶13

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶14

¶15

3 CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI682009.

¶16

4 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI682009.

¶17

5 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI682009.

¶18

6 SRI.SUMIT KUMAR IRS, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-682009.

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH B., SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).720/2019, WP(C).41088/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶22

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 21ST POUSHA, 1940

¶26

WP(C).No. 720 of 2019

¶27

: PETITIONER/S

¶28

1 JOAKIM YESUDASAN, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.M.J.YESUDASAN,MANIYAPOZHYIL HOUSE, ANDHAKARANAZHY.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZH A.

¶29

2 ANTONY SIJO, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.JOHNSON,VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KADEBHAGAM ROAD,PALLURUTHY,COCHIN.THE STATE OF KERALA

¶30

BY ADV. SMT.AMRIN FATHIMA

¶31

: RESPONDENT/S

¶32

1 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE,WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009.

¶33

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(SIIB), CUSTOMS HOUSE,WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009.

¶34

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶35

¶36

3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,(I AND B) CUSTOMS HOUSE,WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009.

¶37

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE,WILINGTON ISLAND,COCHIN682009.

¶38

5 M/S. MBK LOGISTIX PVT.LTD, 39/6720-H,BAB TOWER,M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682015,REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND THE SENIOR MANAGER.

¶39

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH B., SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).302/2019, WP(C).41088/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶42

¶43

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶44

PRESENT

¶45

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 21ST POUSHA, 1940

¶46

WP(C).No. 41088 of 2018

¶47

: PETITIONER/S

¶48

M/S MBK LOGISTIX PRIVATE LIMITED, 39/6720-H, BAB TOWER, MG ROAD, KOCHI-682015, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 58, S/O P.J. WILLIAMS, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, VELI ROAD, H. NO.9/355 D, FORT COCHIN-682001.

¶49

BY ADV. SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR

¶50

: RESPONDENT/S

¶51

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶52

2 CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECTO TAXES AND CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK , NEW DELHI, 110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶53

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶54

¶55

3 CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI682009.

¶56

4 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI682009.

¶57

5 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI682009.

¶58

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH B., SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS

¶59

OTHER PRESENT:

¶60

AAG SRI. K.M. NATRAJ., CGC CMT. CG. PREETHA

¶61

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).302/2019, WP(C).720/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶62

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶63

¶64

JUDGMENT

¶65

[ WP(C) 302/2019 ,WP(C).720/2019, WP(C).41088/2018 ]

¶66

The petitioner in WP(C) No.41088 of 2018 is a Company. The

¶67

principal respondents in that writ petition are the Customs Department and its officials. The Company filed this writ petition challenging the Ext.P13 show cause notice. This Court on 18^th December 2018 permitted the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice and, then, the authorities to adjudicate the issue.

¶68

Later, pending that writ petition, in compliance with the order dated 18.12.2018, the Department took further steps. Eventually the Commissioner of Customs passed an order, dated 31^st December 2018. Through that order, the Commissioner revoked the Company's registration, besides imposing penalty on the Company and two of its employees. Assailing that order, the petitioner Company, its Managing Director, and the Power of Attorney—that is, all the recipients of the show cause notice—filed WP(C) No. 302 of 2019. On the other hand, the two employees who suffered the penalty filed WP(C) No.720 of 2019, assailing the same order.

¶69

¶70

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶71

For the ease of narration and comprehension, I refer to the

¶72

documents filed in WP(C) No.302 of 2019, besides referring to those in WP(C) No.720 of 2019 only if the clarity demands.

¶73

As counsel, Sri P.G. Jayasankar represents the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.41088 of 2018 and 302 of 2019; Ms. Amrin Fathima represents the petitioners in WP(C) No.720 of 2019. But before they could submit on the merits, Sri K.M.Natraj, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, has raised a preliminary objection. And that concerns the maintainability of the writ petitions.

¶74

According to the learned ASG, the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy: a statutory appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, before the CESTAT, Bangalore. So I asked the petitioners' counsel to confine their submissions to the preliminary issue of maintainability.

¶75

Indeed, both Sri P.G. Jayasankar and Ms. Amrin Fathima have argued elaborately. While stressing that the writ petitions are eminently maintainable, they have incidentally trenched upon the merits, too. According to them, to put the issues in perspective and to drive home their point that the writ petitions are maintainable, incidental

¶76

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶77

¶78

reference to the merits is inevitable; that a pure question of law cannot be argued in vacuum. Only to contextualize the issues, have they, the counsel maintain, adverted to the merits, too. But I refer to the minimum facts to ascertain or to determine the preliminary issue of maintainability.

¶79

Ext.P13 show cause notice, running into 19 pages, contains elaborate allegations and charges against the Company and its employees. The Company, as a registered shipping agent, faces an allegation of using forged and fabricated documents. The further allegation is that its employees, that is the petitioners in WP(C) No.720 of 2019, have fabricated those documents. Both the learned counsel have assailed the Ext.P27 order, to summarise, on these grounds:

¶80

(1) the show cause notice is predetermined and fait accompli;

¶81

(2) the authorities have violated the principles of natural justice;

¶82

(3) the Departmental bias has been writ large across the impugned order.

¶83

To elaborate, both the counsel have submitted that though

¶84

the show cause notice has referred to many documents, the petitioners have been given access to only a few. Then, confronted with the case file,

¶85

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶86

¶87

the counsel have, however, submitted that the Department supplied the petitioners all the twenty four documents referred to in the show cause notice. But the “background documents” which supported those twenty four documents, such as the records maintained by the Department, have not been given access to.

¶88

The learned counsel have further submitted that during the cross examination of the Department witnesses, despite request by the counsel representing the petitioners, the Commissioner has not allowed the counsel to physically verify the documents and objects, which are material and which have been heavily relied on in the impugned order.

¶89

Espousing the Company's cause, Sri Jayasankar submits that Exts.P3 and P4 circulars only prescribed the procedure for registration of a shipping agent, which the petitioner Company is; but it has not spelt out any mechanism for cancelling or revoking a registration. On that count, he contends Ext.P27 cannot be sustained.

¶90

About the alternative remedy, Sri Jayasankar submits that though Section 129A speaks of an appellate remedy, it is not efficacious. According to him, the Tribunal has not been in regular session. Besides

¶91

¶92

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶93

that, as the petitioner's registration already stands revoked, before the Tribunal could adjudicate the issue, it would be many more months and, by then, the petitioner Company would suffer extreme hardship on every count, including the financial one.

¶94

Ms. Amrin Fathima, on the other hand, has submitted that the show cause notice has not spelt out which provisions the two employees have violated. Even on the penalty imposed, she contends that no rationale has been spelt out in the impugned order. In other words, no justification emerges from the order why Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- were imposed on the first and second petitioners respectively in WP(C) No.720 of 2019. According to her, the impugned order exemplifies the arbitrary exercise of power.

¶95

Though at least five Department officials have owned up their signatures on the disputed documents, the authorities, argues Ms Amrin Fathima, have not allowed the petitioners to access those documents, much less take advantage of them.

¶96

Ms. Fathima has further contended, as did Sri Jayasankar, that the notice was predetermined. She has also submitted that once the

¶97

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶98

¶99

show cause notice has not conformed to the minimum requirements, such as spelling out the details; it falls short of procedural requirements. It violates the principles of natural justice, too. To support her contentions, she has relied on Kothari filaments and Another v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata and Others¹ , Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India² , Mars Shipping Services v. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import)m Chennai³ , Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra⁴ , Bhola Singh v. Collector of Customs (Preventive)⁵ , Akash International v. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata⁶ .

¶100

Sri K. M. Nataraj, the learned Additional Solicitor General of

¶101

India, for the Customs Department, has submitted that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy. He agrees denial of an opportunity is a threshold issue and it amounts to violating the principles of natural justice. But an opportunity given, if the aggrieved person still complains

¶102

about the lapses in the course of that opportunity, according to him, it is a

¶103

1 2009 (2) SCC 192

¶104

2 2011 (266) ELT 422 3 2015 (322) ELT 865 4 2007 (207) ELT 168 5 1993 (66) ELT 105 6 2006 (197) ELT 200

¶105

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶106

¶107

matter to be adjudicated by a competent forum, rather than by this Court in its summary dispensation.

¶108

Besides taking me through the records and also the case file now placed before the Court, the learned ASG has fairly submitted that he would not at this stage vouch for the infallibility of the impugned order. He would rather confine himself to the fact that the petitioners are not without remedy and that the remedy is efficacious, too.

¶109

Heard Sri P.G.Jayashankar, Ms.Amrin Fathima, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.M.Natraj, the Additional Solicitor General, Sri B.Rajesh, the learned Standing Counsel and Smt C.G.Preetha, the learned Central Government Counsel besides perusing the records.

¶110

Indeed, the Exts.P3 and P4 spell out the procedure for registration of a shipping agent. They do not in explicit terms refer to the mechanism of revoking the registration. But this seeming lacuna does not detain us any longer. For it is well established that an authority having power to do something has, by implication, unless expressly prohibited, the power to undo it. It is an inherent administrative power, subject to statutory stipulations or limitations. Here, though this Court avoids

¶111

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶112

¶113

adverting to the merits, the Company and its employees, prima facie, face

¶114

a grave allegation of fabricating the documents and falsifying the records.

¶115

I reiterate it is only an allegation, though.

¶116

As to the statutory remedy, Section 129A, to the extent

¶117

relevant, reads:

¶118

129A Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal

¶119

(1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order-

¶120

(a) a decision or order passed by the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] as an adjudicating authority;

¶121

(b) an order passed by the [Commissioner (Appeals)] under section 128A;

¶122

(c) an order passed by the Board or the [Appellate Commissioner of Customs] under section 128, as it stood immediately before the appointed day;

¶123

(d) an order passed by the Board or the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs], either before or after the appointed day under section 130, as it stood immediately before that day:

¶124

[PROVIDED that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred to in clause (b) if such order relates to,-

¶125

¶126

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶127

I reckon Section 129A(1)(a) is very broad in its scope and

¶128

covers the issue before us. To that extent, I must accept the Department's contention that the petitioners have an alternative remedy.

¶129

Next follows the question: Is that alternative remedy efficacious? Sri Jayasankar has contended that the Tribunal has not been in session regularly and that it would take inordinate amount of time for the Tribunal, given its logistical limitations, to finalise the proceedings. I am afraid, appealing as the submission may be, I cannot subscribe to it. Systemic delays or infrastructural inadequacies cannot be a ground to defeat a statutory mechanism—especially an alternative remedy.

¶130

About the issues raised in these writ petitions, I reckon the Tribunal, comprising both judicial and technical members, is eminently not only suitable but also empowered to rule on every issue raised in the impugned order, as well as in these writ petitions. To that extent, I hold that the remedy is efficacious.

¶131

On the contents of the show cause notice and the desirability of the procedure adopted by the adjudicating authority, Ms. Amrin Fathima has made elaborate arguments. Given her standing of three years

¶132

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶133

¶134

at the Bar, she has made exceptional efforts, well complemented by Sri Jayasankar, who is known for his industry and research.

¶135

Though I have found the alternative remedy to be efficacious,

¶136

I may have to examine the precedents the petitioners’ counsel cited.

¶137

The statutory authorities under the Customs Act, notes the Supreme Court in Kothari Filaments, discharge quasi-judicial functions. Therefore, an adverse order could affect a person's property and that may be through confiscation, redemption fine, personal fine and so on. In other words, a finding of statutory violation results in civil or evil consequences. So the principles of natural justice must be complied with. Kothari Filaments has gone on to observe that the Act, in the first place, does not prohibit the application of the principles of natural justice. On the facts of the case, it has observed a person charged with mis-declaration is entitled to know the ground based on which he would be penalised. He may have an answer to the charges or may not have, but there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in law he is entitled to a proper hearing, which would include supply of the documents.

¶138

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶139

¶140

In ORYX Fisheries the Supreme Court has observed that a quasi-

¶141

judicial authority, while exercising its statutory power, must act fairly, even when initiating show-cause proceedings. Then it quotes with approval Kem Chand v. Union of India⁷ , a Constitution Bench decision, to affirm that at the stage of show-cause the person proceeded against must be told about the charges against him so he can take his defense. It is obvious that while issuing the charge sheet, the authorities cannot articulate definite conclusions of a person's alleged guilt. If that is done, the entire proceedings initiated by the show-cause notice get vitiated by unfairness and bias, for the subsequent proceedings become an idle sermon.

¶142

Mars Shipping Services rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court echos the dictum of Kem Chand. In Siemens Ltd., the Supreme Court has held that ordinarily a writ court will not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction against a notice to show cause unless the notice appears to have been without jurisdiction. But when a notice is issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the courts direct the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would serve no fruitful purpose.

¶143

7 AIR 1958 SC 300

¶144

¶145

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶146

Bhola Singh, an order by CEGAT, Calcutta, I am afraid, turns entirely on the facts of the case. In Akash International, CESTAT, New Delhi, refers to Section 124 of the Act to emphasise that it embodies the principles of natural justice. The case deals with the power of confiscation of goods under Chapter XIV. On facts, it observes that the existence of grounds for confiscating the goods is a sine qua non for the authorities to issue a notice under Section 124. Without the information to the person concerned about the grounds of confiscation, it would be impossible for that person to defend himself. So the notice under Section 124 must satisfy all the statutory ingredients.

¶147

Here, on facts, I must hold that the petitioners in both the writ petitions were served with show-cause notices replete with information—true or false, though—and were supplied with the documents they had asked for. True, they do complain about the shortcomings in the inquiry and lack of proper opportunity during the trial—that is, when they examined the departmental witnesses. But they are the matters the appellate forum has the power to look into.

¶148

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶149

¶150

As a result, without adverting to the merits, I dismiss the writ

¶151

petitions leaving it open for the petitioners to pursue their remedies before the appellate authority.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

JUDGE

Das/css

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶156

¶157

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 302/2019

¶158

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶159

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY IN FAVOUR OF THE SENIOR MANAGER.

¶160

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY.

¶161

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.110/2003-CUS DATED 22.12.2003.

¶162

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.30/2004-CUS DATED 22.12.2003.

¶163

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPORT MANIFEST (VESSELS) REGULATIONS, 1971.

¶164

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPORT MANIFEST (VESSELS) REGULATIONS, 1976.

¶165

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.38/2018-CUS (N.T) DATED 11.5.2018 (SEA CARGO MANIFEST AND TRANSHIPMENT REGULATIONS, 2018), WITHOUT ANNEXURE, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶166

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING F.NO.S25/67/2018-1&B. CUS DATED 26.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶167

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶168

¶169

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION NO.38764 OF 2018, FILED BY THE PETITIONER (WITHOUT ITS EXHIBITS). EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDVIT IN WPC NO.38764/2018 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN (WITHOUT ITS EXHIBITS). EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.12.2018 IN WPC NO.38764/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 12.12.2018 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE TRAILING MAIL. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING F.NO.SIIB/MISC/44/2018-CUS DATED 10.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 13.12.2018 SEEKING ISSUANCE OF CLEAR AND LEGIBLE COPIES OF THE RELIED UPON DOCUMENTS. EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT SEEKING FOR MORE TIME TO PREFER A REPLY.

¶170

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶171

¶172

EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS REPORT DATED 28.11.2018 IN THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS.

¶173

EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS REPORT DATED 28.11.2018 IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA (ALONG WITH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS REPORT DATED 29.11.2018 IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA (ALONG WITH TRANSLATION).

¶174

EXHIBIT P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶175

EXHIBIT P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 IN WPC NO.41088/2018 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶176

EXHIBIT P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.12.2018, PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶177

EXHIBIT P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 24.12.2018, ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS, ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶178

EXHIBIT P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 27.12.2018, PREFERRED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4TH

¶179

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶180

¶181

RESPONDENT.

¶182

EXHIBIT P26 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONERS, DATED 29.12.2018. EXHIBIT P27 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P28 A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 22.11.2018.

¶183

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶184

¶185

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 720/2019

¶186

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶187

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 10/12/2018 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶188

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 26/12/2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ASKING FOR THE COPIES OF VIDEO FOOTAGES OF EXAMINATION OF THE PETITIONERS.

¶189

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26/12/2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶190

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 28/12/2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶191

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-INORIGINAL NO.COC-CUSTOMS-000-C0M41/18-19 DATED 31/12/2018,ISSUED ON 01/01/2019 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶192

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶193

¶194

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41088/2018

¶195

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶196

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY IN FAVOUR OF THE SENIOR MANAGER

¶197

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER COMAPNY

¶198

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 110/2003- CUS DATED 22.12.2003

¶199

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 30/2004- CUS DATED 16.4.2004

¶200

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPORT MANIFEST (VESSELS) REGULATIONS, 1971

¶201

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPORT MANIFEST (VESSELS) REGULATIONS, 1976

¶202

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 38/2018-CUS (N.T) DATED 11.5.2018 (SEA CARGO MANIFEST AND TRANSHIPMENT REGULATIONS, 2018), WITHOUT ANNEXURE

¶203

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING F. NO. S25/67/2018-1&B. CUS DATED 26.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶204

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶205

¶206

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE WIRT PETITION NO. 38764 OF 2018, FILED BY THE PETITIONER (WITHOUT ITS EXHIBITS) EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN WPC NO. 38764/2018 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN (WITHOUT ITS EXHIBITS) EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.12.2018 IN WPC NO 38764/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED S12.12.2018 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE TRAILING MAIL EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING F. NO. SIIB/MISC/44/2018-CUS DATED 10.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 13.12.2018 SEEKING ISSUANCE OF CLEAR AND LEGIBLE COPIES OF THE RELIEF UPON DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO EXT P14 EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PEREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT SEEKING FOR MORE TIME TO PREFER A

¶207

W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases

¶208

¶209

	REPLY
EXHIBIT P17	A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO EXT P16
EXHIBIT P18	TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS REPORT DATED 28.11.2018 IN THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS
EXHIBIT P19	TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS REPORT DATED 28.11.2018 IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA (ALONG WITH TRANSLATION)
EXHIBIT P20	TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS REPORT DATED 29.11.2018 IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA (ALONG WITH TRANSLATION)
EXHIBIT P21	A TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶210

Das/css/

Joakim Yesudasan v. the Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joakim Yesudasan v. the Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala Co-Operative Deposit Guarantee Fund Board Vs Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise

M/S.Royal Food Court, Vs the State Tax Officer

M/S. Kerala Homes Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Kinetic Rubbers Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. Manjally Jewellers Vs State Tax Officer

Somasekharan.B. Vs State Tax Officer