JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner bank (hereafter ‘IOB’) has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:-

“(a) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari to quash the Communication/Notice dated 16.05.2014 issued by the Respondent no.1 herein, i.e., the Commissioner of Customs, Marmagoa to the petitioner herein as also the communications dated 22.04.2014 and 12.05.2014 issued by the Respondent no.1 to the Reserve Bank of India;

(b) Restrain the Respondent no.1 from taking any adverse action against the petitioner in the nature of blacklisting or otherwise as stipulated in the impugned communications dated 22.04.2014 and 12.05.2014’;

(c) Restrain the Respondent no.1 from disseminating any adverse information/comments about the Petitioner to any third party/Government departments etc. as mentioned in the said impugned communications dated

22.04.2014 and 12.05.2014.”

2. By a notice dated 16.05.2014, IOB was called upon to appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (A) with all relevant documents and was further informed that in absence of its appearance an ex-parte decision would be taken for enforcement of the bank guarantees (hereafter ‘BGs’) furnished by IOB to the Customs Authorities (being LG No ‘

408/IOB/LGI/57/2012 dated 03.04.2012 for 37,91,852 and LG No ‘ .

408/IOB/LGI/54/2012 dated 31.03.2012 for 25,32,940/-)

3. IOB is further aggrieved by communication dated 12.05.2014, sent by the Customs Authorities to Reserve Bank of India, inter alia, seeking that proceedings be initiated against IOB for not fulfilling its obligations under the aforementioned BGs. In addition, IOB has also impugned a letter dated 22.04.2014 whereby the Deputy Commissioner Customs (A) had threatened IOB that if IOB failed to renew the BGs all authorities and departments would be informed of IOB’s failure to honour its commitments; in effect, IOB would be blacklisted.

4. According to IOB, the BGs in question had lapsed and no request for renewal of the BGs had been received from respondent No.2 (M/s Alpine Minmetals India Pvt. Ltd, hereafter ‘Alpine’), at whose instance the BGs had been issued. Therefore, there was no question of renewing the same and IOB could not be compelled to do so.

5. The controversy in the present case involves a question as to interpretation of the BGs issued by IOB in favour of the President of India to secure the Customs Authorities against any loss, damage caused or suffered on account of failure on the part of Alpine to comply with any terms and conditions as contained in the provisional assessment test bond.

6. The controversy involves interpretation of clause 5, 7 and 8 of the BGs. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to clauses 7, 8 and the relevant portion of clause 5 of the BG (LG No

408/IOB/LGI/54/2012), which are reproduced as under:-

“5…..This Guarantee will remain in force for SIX (6 months) months of its issue and we undertake to renew the Bank Guarantee at the request of the exporter till the matter for which the Guarantee is furnished is decided.

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

7. We hereby undertake to renew the Bank Guarantee from time to time till the matter is finally decided and also confirm that the guarantee will not be revoked by the guarantor without prior written consent of the government.

8. Notwithstanding anything contained herein:

a. Our liability under this guarantee shall not exceed Rs. 25,32,940/- (Rs. Twenty Five lakhs Thirty two thousand nine hundred forty only).

b. This Bank Guarantee shall be valid up to 30th September

2012.

c. We are liable to pay the guaranteed amount or any part thereof under this bank guarantee only and only if you serve upon us a written claim or demand on or before 30th September, 2012.”

7. The language of the BG being LG 408/IOB/LGI/57/2012 is similar except that the amounts differ and the last date for receiving a claim under clause 8 (c) of the BG is 02.10.2012.

8. A plain reading of clause 7 of the BGs indicates that IOB h