Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2014 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 815 - HC - CustomsProhibition to operate as customs house brokers - license under the Customs Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 - Pending the parent Commissionerate's action and under Regulation 20, the Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai, has chosen to propose a prohibition order. - Held that:- When the proceedings are pending and the client is yet to be saddled with any liability of payment of duty, or penalty, then, the impugned order could not have been passed. Despite, such a matter being taken up with the parent Commissionerate, the Customs Commissioner at Mumbai, thought it fit to invoke Regulation 23 is something which has not been clarified leave alone explained to us. There was, therefore, a clear haste and arbitrariness in proceeding against the petitioner. There was no reason to keep aside the adjudication proceedings and only proceed in terms of Regulation 23. For all these reasons and finding that the action is only based on the allegations in the show cause notice issued to the importer/client that we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The power under Regulation 23 which is discretionary and coupled with a duty could not have been exercised in the given facts and circumstances and for the reasons that we have set out above. The Commissioner is free to take such steps against the importer/client as also the petitioner in terms of the pending adjudication proceedings or otherwise but in accordance with law - parent Commissionerate at Cochin may take appropriate action - decided in favor of petitioner.
|