Customs custody arrangements for precious cargo upheld as a valid regulatory policy, with no unlawful monopoly found.

The Rajasthan HC upheld the customs procedure requiring imported precious cargo to be taken first to the newly appointed custodian's warehouse for segregation, because importers could opt in advance for clearance through the petitioner custodian and have the cargo shifted without charge. It found no real compulsion, unlawful monopoly, or arbitrariness in the arrangement. The Court also held that appointment of more than one custodian under the Customs Act is an enabling power, and that operational arrangements for handling precious cargo are a matter of regulatory policy. In judicial review under Article 226, such policy choices will not be interfered with absent legal infirmity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the procedure requiring imported precious cargo to be first taken to the warehouse of the newly appointed custodian for segregation, and permitting clearance through either custodian depending on the importer's declaration, was arbitrary, created an unlawful monopoly, or was otherwise liable to be struck down in judicial review.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the procedure evolved by the Customs authorities; the appointment of the additional custodian for precious cargo was not directly assailed. The procedure showed that cargo was taken to the other custodian's warehouse only for segregation, and that an importer who did not want clearance through that custodian could file a declaration in advance and have the precious cargo shifted to the petitioner's warehouse without charge. The Court held that no real compulsion or monopoly was created. It further held that appointment of custodians under the Customs Act is an enabling power, capable of being exercised more than once, and that the framing of such operational arrangements for handling precious cargo was a matter of policy and regulation for the Customs Commissioner. In judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court would not regulate that policy choice absent legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The procedure was held valid and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected, and the impugned orders regulating handling of precious cargo at the airport were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: The Customs Commissioner may appoint more than one custodian and impose reasonable regulatory conditions for cargo handling under the Customs Act, and such policy-based arrangements will not be interfered with in judicial review unless shown to be arbitrary or unlawful.

---