MBK Logistix Private Limited & Anitha Prabhaker Kini & Santosh Kumar v Union of India & Others (W.P.(C) No. 302/2019 & Conn. Cases)

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 21ST POUSHA, 1940 ## WP(C).No. 302 of 2019 ## PETITIONER/S: - 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. - 2 ANITA PRABHAKER, AGED 42 YEARS W/O. M.PRABHAKER KINI, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.6A, SFS BAVERLY PARK, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682020. - 3 SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. P.J.WILLIAMS, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, VELI ROAD, H.NO.9/355 D, FORT COCHIN682001. BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR SHEBA RIVY SIMON SMT.LINTA VARGHESE SMT.T.S.LIKHITHA ## RESPONDENT/S: **==> picture [42 x 136] intentionally omitted <==** - 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110001. - 2 CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, 110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 2 - 3 CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI682009. - 4 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI682009. - 5 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI682009. - 6 SRI.SUMIT KUMAR IRS, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-682009. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH B., SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE &AMP; CUSTOMS 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: W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 21ST POUSHA, 1940 ## WP(C).No. 720 of 2019 ## : PETITIONER/S **==> picture [42 x 177] intentionally omitted <==** - 1 JOAKIM YESUDASAN, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.M.J.YESUDASAN,MANIYAPOZHYIL HOUSE, ANDHAKARANAZHY.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZH A. - 2 ANTONY SIJO, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.JOHNSON,VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KADEBHAGAM ROAD,PALLURUTHY,COCHIN.THE STATE OF KERALA BY ADV. SMT.AMRIN FATHIMA ## : RESPONDENT/S **==> picture [42 x 129] intentionally omitted <==** - 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE,WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009. - 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(SIIB), CUSTOMS HOUSE,WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009. W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 4 - 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,(I AND B) CUSTOMS HOUSE,WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009. - 4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE,WILINGTON ISLAND,COCHIN682009. - 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. - BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH B., SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE &AMP; CUSTOMS 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: W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 21ST POUSHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 41088 of 2018 ## : PETITIONER/S **==> picture [84 x 145] intentionally omitted <==** 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. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR ## : RESPONDENT/S **==> picture [42 x 161] intentionally omitted <==** 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110001. 2 CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECTO TAXES AND CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK , NEW DELHI, 110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 6 - 3 CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI682009. - 4 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI682009. - 5 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI682009. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH B., SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE &AMP; CUSTOMS ## OTHER PRESENT: AAG SRI. K.M. NATRAJ., CGC CMT. CG. PREETHA 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: W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 7 ## JUDGMENT ## [ WP(C) 302/2019 ,WP(C).720/2019, WP(C).41088/2018 ] The petitioner in WP(C) No.41088 of 2018 is a Company. The 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. 2. 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. W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 8 3. For the ease of narration and comprehension, I refer to the 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 9 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. 7. 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: - (1) the show cause notice is predetermined and fait accompli; - (2) the authorities have violated the principles of natural justice; - (3) the Departmental bias has been writ large across the impugned order. 8. To elaborate, both the counsel have submitted that though 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, W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 10 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 11 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Ms. Fathima has further contended, as did Sri Jayasankar, that the notice was predetermined. She has also submitted that once the W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 12 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 Others[1] , Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India[2] , Mars Shipping Services v. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import)m Chennai[3] , Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra[4] , Bhola Singh v. Collector of Customs (Preventive)[5] , Akash International v. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata[6] . 15. Sri K. M. Nataraj, the learned Additional Solicitor General of 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 about the lapses in the course of that opportunity, according to him, it is a > 1 2009 (2) SCC 192 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 W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 13 matter to be adjudicated by a competent forum, rather than by this Court in its summary dispensation. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 14 adverting to the merits, the Company and its employees, prima facie, face a grave allegation of fabricating the documents and falsifying the records. I reiterate it is only an allegation, though. 19. As to the statutory remedy, Section 129A, to the extent relevant, reads: ## 129A Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal (1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order- (a) a decision or order passed by the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] as an adjudicating authority; (b) an order passed by the [Commissioner (Appeals)] under section 128A; (c) an order passed by the Board or the [Appellate Commissioner of Customs] under section 128, as it stood immediately before the appointed day; (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: [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,- . . . 15 W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 20. I reckon Section 129A(1)(a) is very broad in its scope and covers the issue before us. To that extent, I must accept the Department's contention that the petitioners have an alternative remedy. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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 W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 16 at the Bar, she has made exceptional efforts, well complemented by Sri Jayasankar, who is known for his industry and research. 24. Though I have found the alternative remedy to be efficacious, I may have to examine the precedents the petitioners’ counsel cited. 25. 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. W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 17 26. In ORYX Fisheries the Supreme Court has observed that a quasijudicial 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 India[7] , 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. 27. 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. > 7 AIR 1958 SC 300 W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 18 28. 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. 29. 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. 19 W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases As a result, without adverting to the merits, I dismiss the writ 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 20 ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 302/2019 ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: - 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. - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY. - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.110/2003-CUS DATED 22.12.2003. - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.30/2004-CUS DATED 22.12.2003. - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPORT MANIFEST (VESSELS) REGULATIONS, 1971. - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPORT MANIFEST (VESSELS) REGULATIONS, 1976. - 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. - 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. W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 21 - 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. W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 22 - 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. - 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. - EXHIBIT P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 IN WPC NO.41088/2018 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. - EXHIBIT P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.12.2018, PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS. - EXHIBIT P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 24.12.2018, ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS, ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 27.12.2018, PREFERRED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4TH W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 23 ||RESPONDENT.| |---|---| |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.| W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 24 ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 720/2019 ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 10/12/2018 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. 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. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26/12/2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 28/12/2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. 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. W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 25 ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41088/2018 ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: - 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 - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER COMAPNY - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 110/2003- CUS DATED 22.12.2003 - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 30/2004- CUS DATED 16.4.2004 - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPORT MANIFEST (VESSELS) REGULATIONS, 1971 - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPORT MANIFEST (VESSELS) REGULATIONS, 1976 - 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 - 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 W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 26 - 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 W.P.(C) No.302/2019 & Conn. Cases 27 ||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| |Das/css/||