Judgment : (Dr. Chandrachud, J.) Leave to amend in terms of the draft tendered and taken on record. The amendment may be carried out during the course of the week. Verification dispensed with. 2. The First Petitioner is a Company which is engaged in the express package distribution business, more popularly described as a courier service. The Petitioners accept consignments on behalf of consignors for delivery at various destinations within and outside the country. Section 194A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 provides for an exemption from octroi of articles which are meant for immediate exportation. Octroi is imposed on goods which are imported into the limits of the Municipal Corporation for consumption, use or sale. 3. Section 194A is in the following terms: “194A. Exemption of articles imported for immediate exportation.- Subject to such rules, not inconsistent with this Act, as the Commissioner, with the approval of the Standing Committee, shall from time to time frame in this behalf, any article imported into Brihan Mumbai for the purpose of immediate exportation shall be exempted from the levy of octroi, if such article is conveyed direct from the place of import to the place of export under such supervision and on payment of such fees therefor as shall be determined in the said rules: provided that no rule framed as aforesaid shall have effect unless and until it is confirmed by the State Government.” In exercise of the power conferred by Section 194A, the Municipal Corporation has framed Rules. These rules are titled as the Rules In Respect of Exemption From Octroi (Immediate Exportation) Rules, 1965. Under Rule 5 an application for exemption under Section 194A has to be supported by an application in Form N annexed to the Rules. The Rules envisage the tendering and registration of an application for exemption (Rule 6); permission for escorting articles to the place of export (Rule 7); escorting of articles (Rule 8); receipt and examination of articles at the place of export (Rule 9); and export of articles (Rule 10). The object and purpose of the rules is to ensure that goods which are imported into Municipal limits for immediate exportation and which are exempt from the levy of octroi are actually exported and are not diverted for consumption, use or sale within Municipal limits. Rule 5 of the Rules provides as follows: “5. The object and purpose of the rules is to ensure that goods which are imported into Municipal limits for immediate exportation and which are exempt from the levy of octroi are actually exported and are not diverted for consumption, use or sale within Municipal limits. Rule 5 of the Rules provides as follows: “5. Preparation of application for exemption Every claim to exemption from Octroi under Section 194A of the Act must be supported by an application for exemption in triplicate in form 'N' annexed to these rules and duly filled in and signed by the importer or on his behalf by his duly constituted attorney and no such application shall be entertained unless it fulfills the following conditions:- -(1) It shall relate to articles which are to be conveyed direct from the place of import to the place of export. -(2) It shall be accompanied by the documents of import and export viz.:- (a) Custom's Export Shipping Bill, Railway Receipt or Parcel Weigh Bill, Air Consignment Note or Goods Consignment Note in the case of import by Sea, Rail, Air or Road, respectively, and -(b) Custom Export Shipping Bill, Railway forwarding note, Air Forwarding Note or Goods Forwarding Note in the case of export by sea, Rail, Air or Road respectively as the case may be. Provided that before a Customs Export Shipping Bills so tendered such Port Trust Fees as may be leviable in respect the articles referred to therein shall be paid and the endorsement 'Fees paid' shall be made thereon by an officer for the time being deputed in that behalf by the Port Trust and provided also that in the case of articles which are transshipped under Customs Tranship permit these rules shall not apply and exemption from Octroi shall be allowed without referring to them” 4. On 12 September 2001, a communication was addressed to the Petitioners by the Deputy Assessor and Collector (Octroi) stating that while availing of the 'N' form facility on behalf of its clients, a Courier Company must take responsibility of complying with the 'N' form procedure as laid down under the Rules. The Petitioners were informed that they were allowed to clear consignments on behalf of their clients by tendering an undertaking at the time and place of import. 5. The Petitioners were informed that they were allowed to clear consignments on behalf of their clients by tendering an undertaking at the time and place of import. 5. On 8 April 2013, the Deputy Assessor and Collector (Octroi) issued the following circular: “It is reported that the courier companies are claiming exemption under 'N' form facility for their customers and thousands of these 'N' forms are uncertified as the articles were not offered to the Octroi staff appointed at the place of export for necessary examination and certification at the time and place of export. These couriers are not responding to the 'N' form demand letters and a huge amount is locked up in such cases. Some of these courier companies have vanished or are operating with new names. To curb such practices it has been decided that:- All the courier companies should furnish an Authorisation letter in the prescribed format from all the principal importers to claim exemption under 'N' form procedure. The courier companies will be given a 15 days time to make the necessary arrangements. No claim for exemption by the courier companies will be entertained on expiry of the above period. In other cases exemption under 'N' form will not be granted unless a NOC is issued by the NCC section with an immediate effect. The above orders should be followed scrupulously.” 6. The genesis of the circular is that though courier companies claim exemption under the 'N' form facility on behalf of their customers, in several cases, the articles are not offered for inspection at the place of export to the Octroi Staff. Some of the courier companies, it is alleged, have vanished from the scene or are operating in new names as a result of which, it is impossible for the Municipal Corporation to pursue the customers on whose behalf goods were brought within Municipal limits. This has a serious revenue implication. To obviate a loss of revenue, the administrative circular provides that all courier companies should furnish an authorisation letter in a prescribed format from the principal importer for claiming an exemption under the 'N' form procedure. 7. This has a serious revenue implication. To obviate a loss of revenue, the administrative circular provides that all courier companies should furnish an authorisation letter in a prescribed format from the principal importer for claiming an exemption under the 'N' form procedure. 7. The submission of the Petitioners is that (i) The circular dated 8 April 2013 is ultra vires the provisions of Rule 5; (ii) In view of the facility which was granted to the Petitioners on 12 September 2001 of tendering an undertaking at the time and place of import, the general circular which has been recently issued cannot be enforced; (iii) During the pendency of the Petition, the Deputy Assessor and Collector addressed a communication to the Petitioners on 15 May 2013 withdrawing the earlier letter dated 12 September 2001. However, the Petitioners have been informed that an 'N' form may be tendered on behalf of the client for availing of an exemption from octroi by producing an authorization from the importer as laid down in Rule 5. Thus, during the course of the hearing, it has been urged firstly, that the administrative Circular dated 8 April 2013 is contrary to the provisions of Rule 5 and is, therefore, invalid; secondly, that the facility which was granted on 12 September 2001 cannot be overridden by a general circular; and thirdly, that the withdrawal of the letter dated 12 September 2001 could not have been effected without complying with the principles of natural justice. 8. On the other hand, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation submits that: (i) Under the Rules, the actual importer as defined in Rule 2(3) is not the Petitioner since the Petitioner acts as an agent for and on behalf of the person in whom the ownership of the goods vests; (ii) Under Rule 5, the 'N' form has to be signed by the importer or on his behalf by his duly constituted attorney; (iii) All that the Municipal Corporation has insisted upon is that an authorization should be submitted by the courier of the principal on whose behalf the goods are brought within the limits of the Municipal Corporation for re-export. The requirement of furnishing this authorization is not contrary to Rule 5 since the Municipal Corporation is only requiring the courier to produce material in the form of an authorization letter of the principal to the effect that the goods are meant for re-export. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the requirement of a courier of producing an authorization letter does not affect the civil rights of the Petitioners and is not a matter of any adverse or prejudicial consequences to require a pre-decisional hearing. All that has been set out in the circular is a production of an authorization letter. The 'N' form facility has not been withdrawn. 9. Section 194A provides for an exemption from the levy of octroi which is otherwise leviable, in cases where goods are meant for immediate re-export. Rule 5 requires the 'N' form procedure to be followed by the importer or on his behalf by his duly constituted attorney. The expression “importer”, as already noted earlier, is defined in Rule 2(3). The reason for requiring the production of a letter of authorization is to enable the Municipal Corporation to have necessary information about the consignor who has consigned the goods for immediate exportation. In a situation where goods are not immediately exported, they become subject to the levy of octroi. In such a situation, it is but necessary for the Corporation to have recourse to the person on whose behalf the courier had brought the goods within Municipal limits ostensibly for immediate exportation. The requirement of furnishing such an authorization can by no means be regarded as ultra vires Rule 5. The requirement of producing such an authorization when the goods are imported within Municipal limits, does not possibly operate to cause any prejudice to the business or activity of the Petitioners. The Municipal Corporation has not withdrawn the 'N' form facility and has clarified that the Petitioners would be entitled to avail of the 'N' form facility. All that the Municipal Corporation requires is the production of a letter of authorization from the person on whose behalf the goods have been imported within Municipal limits for the purposes of immediate exportation. The administrative requirement is not a matter of any prejudice to the courier, and is only a safeguard to ensure that the interests of the Revenue are secured. The administrative requirement is not a matter of any prejudice to the courier, and is only a safeguard to ensure that the interests of the Revenue are secured. The contention that the circular is prejudicial and hence the principles of natural justice ought to have been observed has no merit whatsoever. Finally, as a matter of fact, by their letter dated 10 April 2013, the Petitioners themselves sought only an extension of time for compliance with the requirement. 10. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the Petition. The Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.