Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Dhir, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Public Notice No.2/1010 dated 14th January, 2010 and a consequential order dated 25th January, 2010 issued by the Customs authorities. The public notice clarified that no request for amendment of the consignee's name in the Import General Manifest (IGM) shall be entertained if the consignee first named has already filed the bill of entry and has neither withdrawn the same nor given a no-objection certificate (NOC) for the amendment. The factual background involved a Brazilian company, Cooperaguas, agreeing to sell approximately 3,875 metric tons of Brazilian Brown Eye Beans to PKT Associates Inc., a US company. The goods were shipped to Nhava Sheva Port, India, under 26 bills of lading. The petitioner claimed that he had filed bills of entry for five bills of lading and cleared the goods, but for the remaining 20 bills of lading, the notified parties (respondents 5 to 14) had filed bills of entry, preventing the petitioner from amending the IGM to clear the goods. The petitioner argued that the public notice was ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the public notice was a reasonable policy measure to prevent misuse and ensure orderly customs clearance. It found no violation of the Customs Act or Article 14, as the classification was based on intelligible differentia. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner's remedy, if any, lies in civil proceedings for breach of contract against the parties concerned.
Headnote
A) Customs Law - Import General Manifest (IGM) - Amendment of Consignee Name - Public Notice No.2/1010 dated 14.01.2010 and Order dated 25.01.2010 - Sections 30 and 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 - The court considered the validity of a public notice prohibiting amendment of consignee's name in IGM if the first named consignee has already filed a bill of entry and has not withdrawn it or given NOC. The court held that the policy is reasonable and not ultra vires the Act, as it prevents misuse and ensures orderly customs clearance. (Paras 2, 10-12) B) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Reasonableness of Administrative Policy - The court examined whether the impugned public notice violated Article 14. It held that the classification between cases where the first consignee has filed a bill of entry and those where he has not is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia, thus not discriminatory. (Paras 10-12) C) Customs Law - Bill of Entry - Amendment of IGM - Rights of Subsequent Consignees - The court held that a subsequent consignee cannot claim amendment of IGM as a matter of right after the first consignee has acted upon the bill of entry. The remedy lies in civil proceedings for breach of contract, not in customs law. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the public notice and consequential order prohibiting amendment of consignee's name in the Import General Manifest (IGM) after the first named consignee has filed a bill of entry without withdrawing it or giving NOC is ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962 and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the public notice and consequential order are valid and not ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962, nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner's remedy, if any, lies in civil proceedings.
Law Points
- Customs Act
- 1962
- Section 46
- Section 30
- IGM amendment
- consignee name
- bill of entry
- NOC
- public notice
- reasonableness
- Article 226
