A.M. Sapre, J.
1. By filing this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of what they describe in the relief clause to be a demand letter, dated 6-9-2000, issued by Deputy Commissioner of Customs, LCD., Pithampur (Annexure P-19). Since, the challenge is only/to this impugned letter, it is necessary to reproduce the same infra verbatim to understand the challenge laid and issued urged :-
'Subject: conversion of EPCG Licence No. 01500532, dated 10-10-96 from Zero duty scheme to 15% duty scheme-reg.'
Please refer to DGFT, New Delhi's letter No. 01/36/2/24/AMS/EPCG-11/266, dated 30-7-2001 on the above mentioned subject.
On your request EPCG Licence has been converted to 15% Duty EPCG Licence from zero duty EPCG Licence by DGFT vide the above referred letter. After this conversion, the governing Customs notification for the said licence has also changed from Customs Notifications 111/95 to 110/95 and consequent upon you are liable to pay the 15% Basic Customs duty and Special Customs Duty/Surcharge on all the goods cleared under above EPCG Licence together with interest @ 24% from the date of clearance of the goods till the date of payment of duty.
You are therefore, required to pay the duty together with interest, immediately, under intimation to this office. In case you fail to do so, you shall be liable to action as per the conditions of the Notification and the Bond/Bank Guarantee/Corporate Guarantee furnished by you.'
2. Heard Shri A.M. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel with Shri V.P. Saraf, learned Counsel for petitioners'.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length with a view to find' but whether any case worth admission of this writ is made out, I am afraid, I find absolutely none. As a consequence, the fate of writ must end with dismissal in limine. Indeed, petition does not have any cause of action and it is misconceived writ large.
4. Indeed, at the out set, I may observe, that I have not been able to appreciate as to on what basis the letter impugned in this writ is adverse or has become adverse to petitioner and if so, in what way. Even a cursory reading of the alleged impugned letter (demand letter as per petitioner) would show that it is sent to petitioner on the basis of request made by the petitioner. In effect and in substance, the gist or purport of the said impugned letter is that 'on the request of petitioner their EPCG licence granted under the Customs Act was converted from Zero duty to that of 15% duty by DGFT vide their letter dated 30-7-2001.' The letter then says that since the licence stands converted from Zero duty to that of 15%, the petitioner has to comply its terms by paying 15% basic Customs duty and other statutory dues on all the goods which are to be cleared under the above licence. The petitioners are thus, asked to comply the same as and when the goods are cleared on the basis of the EPCG licence.
5. In my considered opinion the letter impugned is neither an order, nor it has an attribute of an order, nor it is a demand based on any order passed against the petitioner. It is only a letter to the petitioner reminding them that as a result of a conversion of EPCG licence, held by the petitioner and the conversion having been done 'on the request of the petitioner themselves', the petitioners will have to follow certain compliances as a necessary consequences.
6. It is not the case of petitioner that they did not ask for the conversion and yet a wrong letter is being sent. I fail to understand that when the petitioner themselves get the conversion done of their licence, then if the authority write a letter to petitioner to comply certain rules and pay duty according to conversion then the authority does not commit any wrong or illegal act, to the detriment of petitioner.
7. Learned Counsel took me to some notifications, I fail to understand its relevancy in referring to these notifications in the context of the impugned letter. When the challenge is confined to one letter, dated 6-9-2001, then even the inquiry is also confined to the said letter.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then urged that there is no provision in the Customs Act for charging any interest and hence, the letter containing charging of interest is without authority of law. The argument is meritless. Sections 28 and 28AA of the Customs Act deals with charging of interest. These provisions were added by Act No. 22 of 1995. Such submission should not have been therefore urged.
9. It is not really necessary for me to burden this order by writing any more as what is stated above is more than sufficient for dismissal of this writ which has absolutely no merit per se. It is in my opinion a clear case of abusing the process of Court by filing a writ.
10. In view of aforesaid discussion, the petition fails and is dismissed in limine.