Aramex India Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that refusal to renew the courier licence registration in international carriage under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations 1998 without granting an opportunity to explain is unjustified.
Facts- The Petitioner is engaged in international carriage of time sensitive documents and parcels on scale. Petitioner was registered as an authorized courier under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations 1998. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Airport Special Cargo dated 19 August 2019 and 30 September 2019 refusing to renew the registration of the Petitioner.
The Petitioner was registered as authorized courier with the Department of Customs. According to the Petitioner, since 1996 its courier license was renewed from time to time. The renewal granted to the Petitioner on 23 June 2017 was for two years. Before the expiry of the registration period, Petitioner made an application for renewal on 8 April 2019 as per the Regulations. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs called upon the Petitioner to furnish certain documents as regards the application for renewal which documents were furnished by the Petitioner on 4 June 2019 and 18 June 2019. The renewal application was rejected by impugned orders dated 19 August 2019 and 30 September 2019. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal where there was difference of opinion between the members upon the issue of maintainability of the appeal and it was referred to the third member. Upon opinion being received from the third member, the Appellate Bench dismissed the appeal by order dated 27 January 2022 holding that it is not maintainable, after which the Petitioner is before us.
Conclusion- The Petitioner was an authorized courier for almost 25 years and the registration was renewed from time to time. Petitioner states that it has invested substantial amounts towards the business. Therefore, the non-renewal clearly had civil consequences and severe implications for the Petitioner. In these circumstances the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to explain before taking the impugned decision. The decision taken without giving opportunity to explain will thus have to be set aside. Non-renewal therefore had serious implications for the Petitioner. We therefore are of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of A.S.Vasan and sons should also be extended to the Petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case the opportunity to the Petitioner be given in form of hearing.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
