Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 17 - HC - CustomsSuspension of CHA licence - Regulation No. 19(2) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 - attempt to clear consignments in order to avail inadmissible drawback - post decisional opportunity of being heard provided to petitioner - the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are erroneous and the correctness of the same may be examined by this Court, without relegating the petitioner to invoke the appeal remedy - whether the respondent was justified in suspending the petitioner’s licence invoking the power under Regulation 19(1) of the Regulations, when the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai had forwarded his order, dated 13-4-2016, for necessary action under Regulation 20 and/or 22 of the Regulations? - Whether the respondent was right in continuing the order of suspension after affording an opportunity to the petitioner in terms of Regulation 19(2) of the Regulations? Held that: - It may be true that the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, communicated his order dated 13-4-2016, to the respondent for necessary action in terms of Regulation No. 20 and/or 22 of the Regulations. According to the respondent, the order should have read as Regulations 19 & 20 and not Regulations 20 & 22 and it is a typographical error - Be that as it may, the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai is not an order empowering the respondent to initiate action under the Regulations. The power to suspend a Customs Broker Licence is conferred on the respondent in terms of the Regulations. Therefore, even if the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, has not referred to any of the provisions of the Regulations, yet, the respondent was well within his jurisdiction to exercise all powers under the Regulations. Therefore, quoting of Regulation No. 20 or 22 is of no consequence and that can hardly be a ground to test the correctness of the impugned order. Therefore, such contention raised by the petitioner stands rejected. The dismissal of one of the employees of the petitioner does not grant immunity to the petitioner from the alleged offence and that the order suspending the petitioner’s Customs Broker Licence was passed on 5-5-2016, immediately after the order of the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai was received by the office of the respondent on 22-4-2016 - The order impugned is a speaking order and no error can be attributed to the same. The reasons assigned are cogent and therefore, this Court does not propose to interfere with the exercise of the power of licensing authority under Regulation No. 19. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|