2025 (3) TMI 1151 - HC - Customs

Kerala HC sets aside shipping communications for lacking regulatory authority and violating contractual freedom principles

The Container Shipping Lines Association (India), CMA CGM Agencires (India) Pvt. Ltd., MSC Agency India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India, Commissioner Of Customs, Cochin, Sepcial Secretary Logistics Department Of Commerce, Ministry Of Commerce And Industry New Delhi.

The Kerala HC set aside communications (Exts.P2 to P5) issued by the third respondent, finding them legally flawed and contrary to the original Public ... Challenge to Public Notice No.5/2020 dated 03.02.2020, as well as Exts.P3 toP5 communications issued - jurisdiction to issue public notice - HELD THAT:- Exts.P2 to P5 communications issued to them by the 3rd respondent runs contrary to the express terms of Ext.P1 Public Notice, and virtually reads-in conditions thereto that were not contained in, or contemplated through, Ext.P1 Public Notice. As a matter of fact, the respondents have not been able to point to any regulatory power on the basis of which a notice in the nature of Ext.P1 Public Notice could be issued, if it had the effect of interfering with the terms of a contract entered into between the shipping lines and the shipper/recipient of the goods under carriage. In the absence of such a regulatory power, traceable to the provisions of any statute or contract, such a power, that has the potential to interfere with the freedom of contract between parties, cannot be inferred from the terms of a Public Notice. Ext.P2 to P5 communications are legally flawed and contrary to Ext.P1 Public Notice. Conclusion - The Court set aside the communications (Exts.P2 to P5) as legally flawed and contrary to the Public Notice. It held that the Public Notice should not be interpreted in a manner that interferes with private contracts. Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include:Whether the Public Notice No. 5/2020 dated 03.02.2020 issued by the Customs Authority unlawfully interferes with private contracts between shipping lines and their clients.Whether the communications (Exts.P2 to P5) issued by the 3rd respondent are consistent with the Public Notice and whether they impose unauthorized conditions on the appellants.Whether the appellants have a cause of action to challenge the Public Notice and the subsequent communications.Whether the Public Notice and communications violate the appellants' fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISPublic Notice Interference with Private ContractsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellants argued that the Public Notice interfered with the terms of private contracts, which are protected under the freedom of contract principle. The court considered precedents related to unauthorized delegation of power and the limits of regulatory authority over private agreements.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the Public Notice was not intended to alter or interfere with existing contracts but merely offered an option to importers regarding terminal handling charges. However, the communications issued by the 3rd respondent were found to impose conditions not contemplated by the Public Notice.Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted that the Public Notice did not explicitly mandate any changes to the contractual terms between shipping lines and their clients. The communications, however, suggested otherwise, which led to the appellants' apprehensions.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that regulatory powers must be explicitly granted by statute or contract and cannot be inferred from a public notice. It concluded that the communications overstepped the intended scope of the Public Notice.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued that the Public Notice did not prevent the enforcement of contract terms. The Court agreed but found the communications to be inconsistent with this position.Conclusions: The Court set aside the communications (Exts.P2 to P5) as they unlawfully imposed conditions not supported by the Public Notice or any statutory authority.Cause of Action and Fundamental RightsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellants claimed a violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution, asserting that the Public Notice and communications affected their contractual freedoms.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court recognized the appellants' cause of action, noting that the communications issued by the 3rd respondent could potentially infringe upon their contractual rights.Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found that the learned Single Judge did not fully address the legality of the communications, focusing instead on the Public Notice.Application of Law to Facts: The Court determined that the appellants' contractual rights were protected by the terms of their agreements, and any interference by the communications was unwarranted.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents contended that the Public Notice did not mandate actions contrary to contract terms. The Court found this argument valid for the Public Notice but not for the communications.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the appellants had a valid cause of action and that their fundamental rights were potentially infringed by the communications.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Court held, 'In the absence of such a regulatory power, traceable to the provisions of any statute or contract, we are of the view that such a power, that has the potential to interfere with the freedom of contract between parties, cannot be inferred from the terms of a Public Notice.'Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that regulatory powers must be explicitly granted and cannot be inferred from public notices. It also underscores the protection of contractual freedoms from unauthorized interference.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court set aside the communications (Exts.P2 to P5) as legally flawed and contrary to the Public Notice. It held that the Public Notice should not be interpreted in a manner that interferes with private contracts. The Writ Appeal was allowed, leaving open the question of the authority of law for issuing public notices to be decided in a future case.