Kerala High Court
The Union Of India vs M/S. Plus Max Duty Free Private ... on 23 June, 2022
W.A.No.360 of 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
WA NO. 360 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2018 IN WP(C).NO.21063/2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 5, 8, 9, 10 & 11:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2 THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ZONE,
CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD,
ERNAKULAM - 682 018.
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS,
AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 024.
4 SUPERINTENDENT (BOND) AIR CUSTOMS,
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 024.
5 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE),
5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTRE, BROADWAY, COCHIN,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
6 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIR CUSTOMS,
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
W.A.No.360 of 2019
2
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 024.
BY ADVS.
JAISHANKAR V.NAIR
SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
MANU S., ASG OF INDIA
RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 &
12:
1 M/S. PLUS MAX DUTY FREE PRIVATE LIMITED,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.86/18,
ROYAL COMPLEX, SANKARI ROAD,
SEETHA RAMA PALAYAM,
THRUCHENGODU, NAMAKKAL,
TAMIL NADU - 637 209
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. SARAVANAN SUBRAMANYAN.
2 THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
RAJIVA GANDHI BHAWAN
SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, BLOCK - A
NEW DELHI - 110 003.
3 THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
REGIONAL HEAD QUARTERS-SOUTHERN REGION,
CHENNAI AIRPORT,
CHENNAI - 600 027.
4 THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008.
5 MR. SUMITH KUMAR,
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE),
5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTRE,
BROADWAY, COCHIN,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
6 MR. VIVEK VASUDEVAN NAIR,
SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS,
5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTRE,
BROADWAY, COCHIN,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
W.A.No.360 of 2019
3
7 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008.
BY ADVS.
P.MAHESH KUMAR
SRI.V.SANTHARAM
DOLLY FRANCIS
ARCHANA SURESH
A.RANJITH NARAYANAN
A.SIMI
SANTHOSH MATHEW
ARUN THOMAS
JENNIS STEPHEN
KARTHIKA MARIA
ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
JAISY ELZA JOE
ABI BENNY AREECKAL
LEAH RACHEL NINAN
SRI.P.M.SHAMEER, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.360 of 2019
4
S.V.BHATTI & BASANT BALAJI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.360 of 2022
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2022
J U D G M E N T
S.V.BHATTI, J.
Heard learned Central Government Counsel
Mr.Jaishankar V. Nair for the appellants, learned
Counsels Mr.Santhosh Mathew, Mr.V.Santharam and
Government Pleader Mr.P.M.Shameer for respondents.
2. Respondents in the W.P.(C).No.21063 of 2018 are
the appellants. The learned Single Judge, through the
judgment under appeal, had set aside Exts.P18 and P19 and
further allowed M/s. Plus Duty Free (Pvt.) Limited to
carry on its business operation. The judgment under
appeal directed the second appellant to entrust the
pending litigation against the M/s. Plus Duty Free (Pvt.)
Limited/1st respondent to some other officer.
3. Read order dated 24.02.2022.
4. Apropos the order, the Commissioner of Customs
W.A.No.360 of 2019
(Preventive) passed the order dated 05.04.2022 against
respondent No.1 in the appeal. The order dated 05.04.2022
cancels the Special Warehouse Licence No.01/2017-18 dated
31.08.2017 issued to the 1 st respondent. The order dated
05.04.2022 is an appealable order before the Tribunal.
5. Mr.Santhosh Mathew, appearing for the 1 st
respondent, informs the court that on 17.05.2022 the
first respondent, in fact, had already availed the remedy
of appeal before the Tribunal. It is further stated that
the 1st respondent though has moved an application for
interim relief, along with the appeal, the 1 st respondent
is unable to get the Interlocutory Application listed
before the Tribunal due to the non-availability of
members of the Tribunal because it appears the posts are
vacant. He seeks the indulgence of this Court to preserve
the rights available to the 1 st respondent in this Court
either for moving an application for necessary interim
order as the circumstances warrant for suitable reliefs.
6. We appreciate the ancillary submission made by
Mr Santhosh Mathew. Hence, by preserving all the rights
available to the 1st respondent against the order dated
W.A.No.360 of 2019
05.04.2022 and granting liberty to the 1 st respondent to
work out the remedies in accordance with law within a
week from today and in the interregnum the order dated
5.4.2022 is kept in abeyance. The writ appeal stands
disposed of.
7. In the impugned judgment, in paragraph No.110,
the learned Single Judge recorded the following
conclusions:
Then, in the interest of investigative fairness, the Chief
Commissioner of Customs will entrust to some other officer
than the 10th respondent the task of completing the
investigation and taking all other consequential measures,
but by using the same material so far the Department has
gathered.
8. The counsel appearing for the appellants and also
the first respondent state that the order dated 05.04.2022
has been made by an officer in his capacity as Commissioner
of Customs (Preventive) who is none other than the 6 th
respondent i.e., Mr.Sumith Kumar. It is brought to our notice
that the said officer is not working as Commissioner of
Customs (Preventive), Cochin, Ernakulam.
9. We are of the view that the conclusion recorded
in paragraph No.110 has worked itself out. Therefore, we
clarify through our present judgment that further
W.A.No.360 of 2019
proceedings as may be deemed fit and necessary pursuant
to the order dated 05.04.2022 are taken up and concluded
by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Ernakulam.
10. We make it clear that observations made in the
impugned judgment against the officer may be treated as
having been made for recording a finding as noted by the
learned Single Judge and will not bear further effect on
the individual officer in any manner.
11. All the questions and consequences that may
arise or answered, pursuant to any of the steps taken in
this behalf, are matters for adjudication before the
Tribunal or the Court. They are to be independently
considered on their own merits, uninfluenced by the
impugned judgment. This Court has not examined or
expressed a view on any of the issues on merits in this
behalf.
Writ Appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
Sd/-
S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE
AS
