By TIOL News Service

AHMEDABAD, DEC 20, 2012: THE Petitioner purchased three DEPB licences issued by the DGFT in favour of one M/s. Yash Exports. These licences were transferable. The authorities also endorsed such licence in favour of the petitioners. With the aid of these licences, when the petitioners imported certain goods and offered to pay customs duty on such imports through the DEPB credits so purchased by them, the customs authorities refused to permit such imports. After some correspondence when the authorities did not budge and meanwhile JDGFT vide order dated 30.03.2000 cancelled all the three licences. Hence, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking the following reliefs -

a) Issuance of TRA in respect of three DEPB licences purchased by them from a trader by the respondent No.3 (Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Varanasi); and

b) Challenging the order dated 0.03.2000 for cancellation of three DEPB Licences by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi.

++ The respondents raised objection with respect to territorial jurisdiction of the court. The main relief is prayed against respondent No.3 who has his office at Varanasi. There are no averments in the petition that any action was taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the court and that the petition should be dismissed only on this preliminary ground.

++ The Counsel for the petitioners contended that the registered office of the Petitioner's company is situated in the state of Gujarat; that the copies of the TRAs of the three DEPB licenses were received by the Petitioner at Ahmedabad; that the effect and impact of the impugned action on the part of respondent No.3 in denying to issue fresh transfer release advices is felt by the petitioner at Ahmedabad and that substantial part of the cause of action has arisen at Ahmedabad. He also pleaded that the respondent No.6 has summoned the Petitioner company at Ahmedabad for enquiry with regard to the subject DEPB licenses and that the Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of this petition.

The High Court observed as -

“It is not in dispute that M/s Yash Exports had shown its address at Varanasi when claiming DEPB licences. It had claimed to have made exports from Varanasi and accordingly received the DEPB licences issued by the Joint Director of Foreign Trade, New Delhi. The petitioners after such licences were transferred in their name, imported the goods at Mumbai. The goods were not cleared by the Customs authority at Mumbai. When the petitioners approached the respondent No.3, i.e. the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Varanasi with a grievance regarding such non-clearance of the goods, such authority refused to grant the request of the petitioners. Thereupon, the petitioners approached this court. On the record, we have a legal notice issued by the petitioners through their advocates dated 18-11-1999. Such notice is addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Varanasi. In the notice, the petitioners conveyed that the release order previously issued could not be utiiised and that fresh release orders be issued. Though in the petition, the petitioners have stated that later on, they desired to import some other goods at Kandla Port utilising such credits, when the petition was filed, no such imports were made and the entire issue pertains to the action of the Customs authorities not allowing the petitioners to import the goods which had landed at Mumbai.

If we see the list of respondents joined by the petitioners in this petition, they are all authorities having their locations at different places outside Gujarat except respondent No.6. The other authorities are stationed at New Delhi, Mumbai, Varanasi etc. Only respondent No.6 - Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI has his office in Ahmedabad. This respondent, the petitioners have joined perhaps on the ground that this authority had issued a summons to the petitioner to record the statements in connection with DRI investigation regarding the alleged bogus exports.In our view, no part of the cause of action can be stated to have arisen within the local limits of this court. To reiterate, the DEPB licences were issued in favour of M/s. Yash Exports at Varanasi. The port of export was shown at Varanasi. The licences were issued by Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi. Such licences were transferred in favour of the petitioners also by the same authority. On the basis of purchase of such licences the petitioners imported goods which landed at Mumbai. The customs authorities at Mumbai refused to permit imports thereof on the basis of the DEPB licences so purchased by the petitioners. Clearly no part of the cause of action can be stated to have arisen within the local limits of this court. The ultimate order that the Joint Director of Foreign Trade passed was also at New Delhi. The ultimate order cancelling the licences which the petitioners have challenged in the petition subsequently, was also passed by the authority at New Delhi.Merely because the officer of DRI issued a summons to the petitioners during the course of investigation, would not give any jurisdiction to us to entertain this petition. Such summons was for the purpose of recording the statements of the authorised representatives of the petitioner No.1 company, this was part of investigation undertaken by DRI with respect to fraud committed in obtaining DEPB licences. Such summons had no co-relation with the grievance of the petitioners of stopping their imports on the ground of not accepting the DEPB licences purchased by the petitioners.In National Textile Corpn. Ltd. and others vs. M/. Haribox Swalram and others - 2004 AIR SCW 2067 , the Supreme Court held and observed that facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned.

In the present case, no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this court. In the result, the petition is required to be rejected only on this ground."

By observing the above, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

(See 2012-TIOL-1029-HC-AHM-CUS)